volume 1 report - stratford-on-avon district · confidential report page 6 of 46 2. councillor...

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL

Case reference: MO-046

Report by Jonathan Goolden, instructed by the Monitoring Officer of Stratford-on-Avon District Council, into allegations concerning Councillor Christopher Saint, arising from complaints made by Mr A Turner. Dated: 29th July 2015

VOLUME 1 REPORT

PO Box 16, Town Hall Square,

Grimsby DN31 1HE

a limited liability partnership registered in England number OC343261

authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

This page is intentionally blank

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

Volume 1

Contents Page 1. Executive Summary 4 2. Councillor Saint’s official details 6 3. Relevant legislation, code and protocols 7 4. Evidence and facts 9 5. Summary of the material facts 31 6. Additional submissions: Councillor Saint & Mr Turner 33 7. Reasoning as to whether there have been failures to comply with the Code of Conduct 41 8. Finding 46

Volume 2 Appendix A Schedule of evidence taken into account and list of unused material

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

1. Executive Summary 1.1 Councillor Saint is a member of Stratford-on-Avon District Council (the

Council) and was at the material time a ward member for the former Tredington ward.

1.2 A complaint was received from Mr Andrew Turner that Councillor Saint had breached the Code of Conduct of the Council by failing to be as open as possible about his decisions and actions by holding meetings with developers who were backing a site at Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath (GLH).

1.3 Those meetings were held to consider and decide upon options for future housing development to be included in the Council’s Core Strategy 2011-31. Sites under consideration included GLH and Long Marston Airfield (LMA).

1.4 The complainant alleges that Councillor Saint breached the Council’s Code of Conduct by:-

failing to comply with the requirement not to improperly confer an advantage/disadvantage on any person;

failing to give equivalent opportunities to persons other than those supporting the GLH proposal to meet with him to develop and discuss their proposals;

acting in a biased or apparently biased manner by deliberately influencing the sequence of events and timetable for the invitation for developers to come forward with bids on 8 February 2013 and the cabinet decision on that date in relation to the Strategic Transport Analysis;

acting in a manner that meant that he (and potentially others) had predetermined the outcome of the decision on the strategic housing options, in particular by employing the party whip to restrict the way that members of his political group voted at the meeting on the 12 May 2014.

1.5 As a result of my investigation I have found that Councillor Saint did hold meetings with developers backing the GLH option. However, he also met developers backing other options. No evidence was presented to suggest that Councillor Saint had declined to meet other developers.

1.6 I have found that the senior officer of the Council dealing with the Core Strategy project did not come under any pressure or influence from Councillor Saint to favour any particular scheme.

1.7 I have considered the imposition of the Party Whip at the Council meeting held on 12 May 2104 and have set out in the report why I consider Councillor Saint was not directly responsible for that decision.

1.8 I have concluded that on those aspects of the complaint relevant to the code of conduct there has not been any inappropriate behaviour by Councillor Saint. I have also considered those aspects not directly covered by the code of conduct and have also found no inappropriate behaviour by Councillor Saint.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

1.9 My finding is that there has not been a breach of the Council’s code of conduct of by Councillor Saint.

1.10 In reaching a conclusion on this matter, I have taken into account comments from both Councillor Saint and Mr Turner on a draft version of this report. Mr Turner’s comments were significant in length and detail. He also asked that I reopen aspects of the investigation on which this report is based. I have given careful consideration to Mr Turner’s comments and request but they have not caused me to change my findings. I also do not consider it necessary to seek further evidence.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

2. Councillor Saint’s official details 2.1 Councillor Saint was first elected as a member of the Council in October 1998

and has served as a councillor since that date. Councillor Saint is also the Leader of the Council and leader of the Conservative Group, a position he has held since May 2011.

2.2 At the time of the events to which the subject matter of the report relates,

Councillor Saint was the ward councillor for Tredington. He is now the ward member for Shipston North.

2.3 Councillor Saint holds the cabinet portfolio for Leadership and Governance which includes the planning and housing policy. He is a member of the Employment and Appointments Sub-committee and chairman of the Employment and Appointments Committee.

2.4 Councillor Saint is also a member of Warwickshire County Council. He represents the District Council on:-

Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire Leaders’ Board;

District Councils’ Network;

Local Government Association;

Stratford District Partnership;

Stratford Local Strategic Partnership;

Stratford Vision group;

Warwickshire Partnership;

West Midlands Employers.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

3. Relevant legislation, code and protocols 3.1 Section 27 of the Localism Act 2011 (the Act) provides that a relevant

authority (of which the Council is one) must promote and maintain high standards of conduct by members and co-opted members of the authority. In discharging this duty, the Council must adopt a code dealing with the conduct that is expected of members when they are acting in that capacity.

3.2 Section 28 of the Act provides that the Council must secure that its code of

conduct is, when viewed as a whole, consistent with the following principles:-

(a) Selflessness; (b) Integrity; (c) Objectivity; (d) Accountability; (e) Openness; (f) Honesty; (g) Leadership.

3.3 The Council adopted a Code of Conduct (attached at JTG 1) on 23rd July

2012 in which the following paragraphs are included:-

Accordingly, when acting in your capacity as a member or co-opted member:- You must act solely in the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person or act to gain financial or other material benefits for yourself, your family or close associate.

You must not place yourself under a financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence you in the performance of your official duties.

….. You must be as open as possible about your decisions and actions and the decisions and actions of your authority and should be prepared to give reasons for those decisions and actions.

3.4 On 14 April 2014 the Council’s Monitoring Officer issued guidance to all

members on the development of the Council’s Core Strategy and implications relating to the above Code (attached at JTG 2). Paragraphs 18 – 21 address discussions with potential developers and are set out below:-

“18. Discussions with potential developers are encouraged where it is likely to be helpful to the Council in developing its Core Strategy. Councillors have an important role to play by bringing their local knowledge and expertise and their understanding of community views. Involving councillors helps

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

to identify issues early on, and allows councillors to lead on community issues.

19. However, it would be easy for such discussions to become, or

be seen by objectors to become part of the lobbying process. Therefore potential developers should be informed at the outset that any discussions will not bind the Council to making a particular decision and that any views expressed are personal and provisional. Officers should be present with councillors in any pre-application meetings.

20. Councillors should not be drawn into any negotiations with

potential developers, which should be done by officers (keeping interested councillors up to date) and a written note should be made of all meetings. An officer will make the arrangements for any meetings, attend and write notes. A note should also be taken of any phone conversations, and relevant emails recorded for the file. Notes should record issues raised and advice given. The note(s) should be placed on the file as a public record.

21. If there is a legitimate reason for confidentiality regarding a

proposal, a note of the non-confidential issues raised or advice given can still normally be placed on the file to reassure others not party to the discussion. Developer presentations to the Council are also an acceptable method of progressing work on the Core Strategy. Such presentations do have the advantage of transparency if they are held in public.”

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

4. Evidence and facts My appointment 4.1 The Council’s arrangements for dealing with standards complaints state that

the Monitoring Officer of the Council, in consultation with the appointed Independent Persons, shall decide whether or not to investigate a complaint.

4.2 Mr Phil Grafton, the Monitoring Officer of the Council, instructed me on 30 October 2014 to carry out an investigation of a complaint dated 8 July 2014 by Mr Turner on his behalf.

4.3 I hold a Bachelor of Arts in Law degree from the University of Sheffield. I am a

solicitor and an accredited mediator. I was employed by various local authorities as a solicitor for a period of 14 years and have held the position of Monitoring Officer in two authorities for six years. I practice law as a solicitor and partner with Wilkin Chapman LLP. I have carried out over 200 investigations of members of local authorities and other public bodies.

4.4 I was assisted in the conduct of the investigation by Martin Dolton. Mr Dolton

is a retired senior police officer who through his 30 years of police service conducted many sensitive police misconduct investigations. He holds a Bachelor of Science Honours degree in Public Policy and Management awarded by the Department of Local Government Studies at Birmingham University. With this firm and its predecessor he has conducted numerous investigations into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct of Councillors and discipline enquiries concerning senior staff in local government. He has been an associate investigator for the Standards Board for England and was a full time Town Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer of a large town council for 3 years.

4.5 I was also assisted in the drafting of this report by Alan Tasker. Mr Tasker is a former Monitoring Officer of a district council and was clerk to a large town council. He has significant experience of code of conduct investigations and the exercise of the planning function in local authorities.

The investigation 4.6 During the investigation, Mr Dolton conducted face to face and telephone

interviews with, and obtained signed statements from:-

Councillor Scorer (interviewed by telephone 13th March, statement signed 15th March 2015);

Councillor Mills (interviewed by telephone 11 March, statement signed 17th March 2015);

Ms Viv Humphreys – PA to Chief Executive and Leader of Council (face to face interview 15th December 2014, statement signed 2nd February 2015) ;

Mr Dave Nash – Policy Manager, Planning and Housing (face to face interview 15th December 2014, statement signed 4th February 2015).

4.7 Mr Anthony (Tony) Bird OBE, Chairman of the Bird Group of Companies,

declined to meet Mr Dolton but responded to written questions. These were sent to him on 4th December 2014 and he replied on 21st January 2015.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

4.8 A telephone interview was held with the complainant Mr Turner on 16th December 2014, as a result of which he provided a signed statement on 6th January 2015.

4.9 Mr Dolton conducted a face to face audio recorded interview with Councillor

Saint on 13th February 2015 from which a transcript was prepared. Councillor Saint was given an opportunity to comment on the transcript of the interview and returned a signed copy of the transcript on 10th March 2015. A number of supplementary written questions were sent to Councillor Saint on 16th March.

4.10 Copies of the above, together with other relevant documents are annexed to

this report and listed in a schedule of evidence in Volume 2. At the request of the solicitors for Mr Bird, on 13th May I provided an extract of the draft report and schedule of evidence containing evidence provided by Mr Bird in order that they might identify material relating to the Bird Group ltd which could be commercially sensitive. I received a response to that communication on 26th May and have redacted references to development proposals which are not the subject of this report.

4.11 A draft version of this report was provided to Mr Turner and Councillor Saint for comment on 27th May 2015. Initially, I requested comments from them by 11th June, but extended this deadline to 26th June due to a period of holiday absence by Mr Turner.

4.12 I wish to record my thanks and those of Mr Dolton for the co-operation and courtesy shown to us by all those we had cause to contact during the investigation.

Background 4.13 The Council had been formulating a Core Strategy Document 2011-31.

4.14 The Council’s Proposed Submission Core Strategy published in May 2014

proposed a minimum of 10,800 new homes in the District over the plan period.

4.15 In January 2013 the Council issued a ‘call for sites’ inviting the submission of proposals capable of accommodating a strategic scale of development, potentially as a new settlement.

4.16 From some 30 proposals a long-list of 15 sites was produced. These were

subject to a sustainability assessment and a shorter list was prepared of more favoured sites that were additionally subject to transport impact and development viability testing. This shorter list included both Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath (GLH) and Long Marston Airfield (LMA).

4.17 The Cabinet of the Council considered the shorter list options, and made a recommendation to include GLH in the Core Strategy to a special meeting of the Council held on 12th May 2014.

4.18 The complainant, Mr Turner, is the Chairman of Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting and was present at the special meeting of the Council on 12th May 2014. GLH lies principally within the Parish of Chesterton and Kingston.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

Mr Turner - complainant

4.19 Mr Turner made a written complaint on the Council’s complaint form dated 8th July 2014 (attached at JTG 3). He submitted additional documents to the Council from July 2014. A detailed exchange of emails took place between Mr Turner and the Council from August to October 2014. Mr Turner provided a chronology of events to me in December 2014. Copies of the above are enclosed as JTG 4 – JTG 13.

4.20 Mr Turner was interviewed by telephone and he confirmed his complaint as set out in his form and letter. A signed statement was also obtained (attached JTG 13).

4.21 Mr Turner stated in his complaint that:-

(a) Councillor Saint had failed to be as open as possible about his

decisions and actions (as per the code of conduct requirement) by holding meetings with the developers who were backing the GLH option;

(b) in the sense that he failed to act in accordance with the LGA/PAS

guidance dated April 2013 in respect of some of those meetings by:-

Not arranging meetings through officers

Not ensuring that officers were present

Not ensuring that notes of the meetings were taken

Not disclosing at an early stage that the meetings had taken place.

(c) Mr Turner also stated that Councillor Saint had failed to comply with

the requirement not to improperly confer an advantage/disadvantage on any person (as per the code of conduct requirement) by:-

Acting in a biased or apparently biased manner by failing to give equivalent opportunities to persons other than those supporting the GLH proposal to meet with him to develop and discuss their proposals;

Acting in a biased or apparently biased manner by deliberately influencing the sequence of events and timetable for the invitation for developers to come forward with bids on 8 February 2013 and the cabinet decision on that date in relation to the Strategic Transport Analysis;

Acting in a manner that meant that he (and potentially others) had predetermined the outcome of the decision on the strategic housing options, in particular by employing the party whip to restrict the way that members of his political group voted at the meeting on 12 May 2014.

Witness – Ms Viv Humphreys 4.22 Ms Humphreys is the Personal Assistant to both the Chief Executive and the

Leader of the Council. She was interviewed in person as a result of which she provided a signed statement (attached at JTG 14).

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

4.23 Ms Humphreys stated:-

(a) she had been employed by the Council for some 25 years, and had been in her current post for the past 20 years;

(b) part of her duties included keeping the Council diary of Councillor

Saint as the Leader;

(c) during the months of August to October 2014, some Freedom Of Information Act (FOI) requests were made to the Council relating to Councillor Saint’s meetings with a Mr Tony Bird and developers involved in the development proposals relating to housing provision to be included in the Council’s Core Strategy document;

(d) as a result of these requests she checked the diary of Councillor Saint,

and provided details of Councillor Saint’s full Council diary for the period from 29 August 2012 to 1 October 2014.

Witness – Mr Dave Nash 4.24 Mr Nash is the Policy Manager – Planning and Housing at the Council. 4.25 He was interviewed in person by Mr Dolton as a result of which a signed

statement was provided (attached at JTG 15).

4.26 Mr Nash stated:- (a) the Council had been formulating its Core Strategy Document 2011-

2031. This was a key planning policy document that informs the scale and location of development expected during that period;

(b) the required scale of housing development in the District had

previously been determined through the West Midlands Regional Strategy process. That process was abolished by the Government and replaced under the ‘localism’ agenda by a requirement that the Council itself should determine the housing requirement. In doing so, it is required to identify ‘objectively assessed housing need’ across its housing market area;

(c) in 2012 the Council consulted on a Core Strategy based on a housing

requirement of 8,000. It became apparent via new technical evidence that this figure did not fully reflect objectively assessed need. The new evidence available in 2013 suggested a need for a minimum of 9,500 homes over the plan period. This figure has again been superseded by new demographic information from the 2011 Census;

(d) the Council’s Proposed Submission Core Strategy published in May 2014 proposed a minimum of 10,800 homes over the plan period, a figure subsequently increased to 11,300 ahead of the independent examination of the Strategy;

(e) the pace of change within the largely rural communities across the

District had been a matter of public concern for several years;

(f) evidence existed to suggest that the environmental and social impact of recent developments was significant. The requirement to further increase the scale of development needing to be planned for through

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

to 2031 persuaded the Council to investigate the option of accommodating some of this growth in a new settlement rather than as further extensions to existing towns and villages;

(g) in January 2013 the Council issued a ‘call for sites’ inviting the submission of proposals capable of accommodating a strategic scale of development, potentially as a new settlement. Over 30 submissions were received, but many were of insufficient scale. Others were in locations that were quickly discounted on the basis of a desk-based sieving exercise (e.g. sites in the Green Belt, land affected by flooding, etc);

(h) the proposal to carry out a large scale development at Lighthorne Heath was promoted to the Council as part of the representations made by Broadway Malyan Planning Consultants during February/March 2012 on the Draft Core Strategy published that year;

(i) there was no evidence to suggest that the Council might favour the option of a large scale development, either in the form of a new settlement or a major urban extension, prior to the ‘call for sites’ letter being issued;

(j) there was evidence of a meeting held on 5 December 2012 attended by Councillor Saint, Robert Weeks (Head of Environment and Planning) and the site promoters, including Mr Bird. The evidence confirmed that the large scale proposal for development at Lighthorne Heath was discussed at this meeting. The potential option of promoting such a development appears to have been a catalyst for the ‘call for sites’ letter;

(k) officers were recorded as having advised that, if an option of that nature was to be pursued, it would be essential to identify other reasonable options across the District and to make an informed choice based on firm evidence;

(l) the ‘call for sites’ in January 2013 produced a long-list of 15 sites that were subject to a sustainability assessment and a shorter list of more favoured sites that were additionally subject to transport impact and development viability testing;

(m) this shorter list included both GLH and LMA. When endorsing its proposed submission Core Strategy in July 2013, the Council favoured GLH as the strategic location best placed to accommodate a large scale new settlement;

(n) because the Council had not previously consulted on this specific proposal, it was accepted that a further period of focused consultation on this and one other specific new proposal should be carried out. This consultation took place during August/September 2013;

(o) the outcome was considered in October 2013. It persuaded the Council that further work needed to be carried out on the GLH option. More information had been forthcoming about other previously shortlisted sites;

(p) furthermore, it was at this stage that the evidence relating to housing need based on the 2011 Census began to emerge. That evidence

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(the Coventry and Warwickshire Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment) was published in November 2013 and reported to the Council in January 2014. It was at this point that the Council agreed to increase the housing requirement from 9,500 to 10,800. It further agreed to investigate the additional evidence concerning possible alternative site options – three that had been looked at previously, plus one new option that had been promoted during the focused consultation period;

(q) this decision led to the ‘Focused Consultation: 2011-2031 Housing Requirement and Strategic Site Options’ document being published in February 2014. This sought public feedback on five viable options for strategic development. The options were to distribute the additional development to the existing main towns and villages; to provide a major urban expansion on the south east side of Stratford-upon-Avon; or to create a new settlement either at LMA, GLH or on two sites in the vicinity of Southam;

(r) Mr Nash provided a detailed written report on the outcome of the consultation process to the Cabinet meeting held on 28 April 2014. This meeting was also presented with updated reports concerned with the following: Strategic Transport Assessment; Water Cycle Study; Viability and Deliverability of Strategic Sites. All these considerations were consolidated into a report providing the councillors with an objective basis for decision making on the preferred option;

(s) it was usual for officers to provide a clear recommendation in a planning report. In this instance no individual option was recommended because the evidence suggested that each individual option was a realistic possibility to pursue. There were pros and cons in each instance. The choice of the preferred strategic approach was therefore quite properly a matter for political determination;

(t) The Cabinet resolved unanimously to recommend to a special meeting of Council on 12 May 2014 that the GLH option be the preferred strategic site. Full Council resolved to include the GLH proposal in the Core Strategy;

(u) ideas and options concerning the preparation of the Core Strategy were discussed informally at meetings of the Leaders Advisory Group (LAG). This was a non-executive group that met on a regular basis to receive updates and provide a steer to officers on emerging issues;

(v) the importance of engaging all councillors on the key matter of identifying the preferred strategic option was reflected by holding three member workshops at different stages in the process (April 2013, December 2013 and May 2014). These were informal workshop sessions and no formal minutes were produced;

(w) as lead member for the preparation of the Core Strategy, Councillor Saint was in attendance at one of the two workshops held at each point of the process. Of a total of 53 councillors there were 33 in attendance in December 2013 and 25 in attendance on each of the other two occasions;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(x) the portfolio holder responsibility for preparing planning policy documents lay with Councillor Saint and he had been closely involved in the Core Strategy process. He was one of five members of LAG;

(y) the option of pursuing a new settlement proposal first appeared at LAG on 7 January 2013, where the meeting held on 5 December 2012 was referred to. At the 8 April 2013 meeting it was noted that technical assessments of the options promoted via the ‘call for sites’ were underway;

(z) progress was reported on 29 April 2013 and 20 May 2013. On 10 June 2013 LAG was advised that the technical work was identifying GLH as the likely preferred option;

(aa) a draft policy for this option was presented for discussion on 1 July 2013. The technical assessments of the various options were further discussed on 8 July 2013. The Council formally endorsed consultation on the GLH option as a ‘new proposal’ for inclusion in the Core Strategy at its meeting on 28 July 2013. As a result of that consultation, the nature of the scheme was revised (to provide land for Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) within the development) and further technical work was commissioned on five leading options for development;

(bb) progress was reported to LAG on 2 December 2013 and the proposals for consultation on these options were discussed on 13 and 27 January 2014. There was a final discussion at the LAG meeting on 14 April 2014 prior to GLH being confirmed as the preferred option at the Council meeting on 12 May 2014;

(cc) throughout this process Councillor Saint did nothing to particularly promote the GLH option or to seek to influence the technical work that had been commissioned;

(dd) in parallel with the LAG process Councillor Saint was provided with regular briefings via one to one meetings with Mr Nash. Again, he did nothing to particularly promote the GLH option;

(ee) Mr Nash was present at three meetings concerning this proposal when Councillor Saint and Mr Bird were both present. Each meeting was also attended by Richard Burke (Commercial Estates Group) and Roger Tustain (planning consultant to the GLH site promoters);

(ff) the first was held at the Council on 12 June 2013 and involved the promoters providing a general update on their evolving proposals for the site, as submitted via the ‘call for sites’ process;

(gg) the second was held at Warwickshire County Council (WCC) Shire Hall, Warwick on 25 October 2013 and was also attended by the Leader of the County Council, WCC officers and representatives of JLR. In recognition of the strategic economic importance of the established JLR research and development site at Gaydon, the purpose of this meeting was to discuss collaborative working between the site promoters, JLR, WCC and SDC;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(hh) the third was held at SDC on 2 April 2014 and involved a further update on the emerging development proposals, including the proposed identification of land for JLR. During these meetings it was confirmed that the potential allocation of the site was being considered alongside other options;

(ii) Mr Nash was not aware of any other meetings that might have taken place between Councillor Saint and Mr Bird without officers being present;

(jj) Mr Nash confirmed that during the process of preparing the Core Strategy he had had meetings with the various land owners and/or developers responsible for the promotion of the four alternative strategic development sites that, in addition to GLH, were consulted on in early 2014;

(kk) Mr Nash was aware that Councillor Saint had met with representatives of Cala Homes, the promoters of the LMA option;

nn) Mr Nash was not aware of Councillor Saint having met any of the other site promoters;

oo) None of the alternative site promoters had made any comments to Mr Nash about Councillor Saint’s involvement in the process.

Witness – Councillor Scorer 4.27 Councillor Scorer is a member of the Stratford-on-Avon District Council and

ward member for Kineton ward. 4.28 He was interviewed by telephone by Mr Dolton as a result of which a signed


4.29 Councillor Scorer stated:- (a) the meeting of the Council on Monday 12 May 2014 was a special

meeting, and considered the inclusion of future housing provision in the Council’s Core Strategy Document;

(b) at the meeting there was a proposal to include the GLH option in the

strategy;

(c) prior to a vote on the inclusion of the GLH option, Councillor Scorer proposed an amendment to the resolution replacing the GLH option with the Long Marston Airfield (LMA) option;

(d) a vote was taken on his amendment and it was defeated by a considerable majority;

(e) the vote on the original proposal to include GLH in the Core Strategy Document then took place and was successful;

(f) Councillor Scorer attended a meeting of the Conservative Group of the Council on Friday 9 May 2014 prior to the meeting on Monday 12 May 2014;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(g) at that meeting of the Group, all other members present were aware of Councillor Scorer’s opposition to the proposal to include GLH in the Strategy Document.

(h) a whip had been called prior to the meeting on 12 May 2014;

(i) there was no reaction or comment made to Councillor Scorer after the meeting on 12 May 2014 from any other member, including Councillor Saint, about his decision to propose the amendment, nor has there been since;

(j) Councillor Saint had assisted Councillor Scorer with advice on Council meeting procedures on this contentious matter prior to the meeting on 12 May 2014;

(k) Councillor Saint, within the weeks following the meeting in May and to date, had remained pleasant and friendly towards Councillor Scorer whenever they had met;

(l) in late May 2014, Councillor Saint also asked if Councillor Scorer would be interested in becoming Chairman of the East Planning Committee of the Council;

(m) Councillor Scorer did not feel that he had been treated in any derogatory or negative manner by Councillor Saint or any other member of the Conservative Group of the Council since his decision to propose the amendment on 12 May 2014.

Witness – Councillor Mills 4.30 Councillor Mills is a member of the Stratford-on-Avon District Council and also

a ward member for Kineton ward. 4.31 He was interviewed by telephone by Mr Dolton as a result of which a signed


4.32 Councillor Mills stated:-

(a) the meeting on Monday 12 May 2014 was a special meeting, and considered the inclusion of future housing provision in the Council’s Core Strategy Document;

(b) he was Chairman at the meeting and a vote was taken to include the GLH option in the strategy. The proposed development at GLH was within the Ward that he represented;

(c) he abstained from the vote;

(d) he attended a meeting of the Conservative Group of the Council on Friday 9 May 2014;

(e) he had to leave the Group meeting early due to another commitment but he understood that the Group agreed that a ‘whip’ would be applied to the vote to support the GLH option. He was not present when the whip was agreed;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(f) the whip would not be called by the Leader of the Council as it was not his role or place to do so;

(g) he was aware that a whip had been called prior to the meeting on 12 May 2014;

(h) at the meeting Councillor Mills abstained from voting as this was a commonly accepted practice when a matter concerned a member’s own Ward;

(i) that no councillor or other person suggested that he should or could abstain. He stated that he was simply following the accepted practice when matters concern a member’s own Ward;

(j) he did not consider that he had any ‘special dispensation’ to abstain from this particular vote as it was a commonly accepted practice;

(k) there was no reaction or comment made to him after the vote from any other member, including Councillor Saint, about his decision to abstain, nor had there been since;

(l) he felt that some members of the Conservative Group felt a degree of sympathy toward him, being Chairman and having to chair the vote on a matter in his Ward.

Witness – Mr Anthony Bird OBE 4.33 Mr Bird is the Chairman of the Bird Group of companies. 4.34 Mr Bird declined to meet with Mr Dolton but opted to provide answers to

questions in writing. Mr Bird’s response to questions was received on 21 January 2015 (attached at JTG 18, together with exhibits JTG 19 - 28).

4.35 Mr Bird’s response to questions was as follows:- (a) a meeting with Councillor Saint on 19 July 2012 took place at Mr Bird’s

instigation at 9 am at the District Council offices. The purpose of the meeting was to brief Councillor Saint on current and possible future developments that Mr Bird’s company was contemplating. An aide memoire prepared for the meeting, dated 12 July 2012 is attached at JTG 20. Mr Bird did not take notes of the meeting. The GLH project was discussed as Mr Bird put on record that it was a project his company was investigating. Councillor Saint made no comment nor gave any advice but thanked Mr Bird for keeping him up to date with his company’s development plans;

(b) Mr Bird met Councillor Saint on 29 August 2012 at Wildmore Spa at

Mr Bird’s instigation. Mr Bird stated that since the July meeting their proposals for GLH had matured and their agreement with their joint venture partner, CEG, had firmed up. They had met with the landowners on 22 August and were certain the project was deliverable. Mr Bird wanted to express this confidence to the Council He did not take notes of the meeting;

(c) a meeting was held on 24 October 2012 at the Council offices. Those

present were Mr Bird, Councillor Saint, Jeff Dowes of Corstorphine & Wright and David Austen from Henley Estates Ltd. Mr Bird provided

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

an email chain of 17 October 2012 (attached at JTG 21) showing the arrangement of the meeting. Mr Bird stated that the meeting related to matters outside the remit of the enquiry;

(d) a meeting was held on 5 December 2012 at the Council offices.

Present were Mr Bird, Councillor Saint, Robert Weeks (the Council’s Head of Environmental and Planning), Richard Burke (Senior Officer of CEG) and Roger Tustain (Senior Planner at Broadway Malyan). Roger Tustain was present to explain the technical details of the proposal discussed at the August meeting. Details relating to the meeting are set out in emails dated 4 December (attached at JTG 22). The meeting was at Mr Bird’s instigation and neither Councillor Saint nor the Council’s officer offered any advice. After the meeting Mr Bird and his team met Sir Peter Rigby, Chairman of the LEP along with his assistant to explain the development plans to him. Whilst Councillor Saint gave no indication whether he was for or against the scheme, Sir Peter supported the residential proposal but not the commercial. Mr Bird had no written notes of the meetings;

(e) a meeting took place on 13 February 2013 at the Council offices. The

meeting related to matters outside the remit of the enquiry. Those present were Mr Bird, Councillor Saint, David Austen from Henley Estates Ltd and ABD Developments, an email chain dated 13 February refers (attached at JTG 23). Mr Bird had no written notes of the meeting and to the best of his knowledge it was held at his instigation;

(f) a meeting was held at the Council offices on 25 February 2013. Those

present were Mr Bird, Councillor Saint, Jayne Blackley and Glen Burley. The meeting related to matters outside the remit of the enquiry;

(g) a meeting was held on 5 June 2013 at the Council offices. Mr Bird

instigated the meeting with Councillor Saint as he wanted to inform him that rumours in the press that the Bird Group had not consulted with JLR and Aston Martin (AM) about development plans were untrue. Mr Bird gave Councillor Saint the times and dates when he had met with JLR and AM and the LEP for discussion for Councillor Saint to pass on the information to others in the Council so they were aware of the true position. Mr Bird prepared notes for the meeting (attached at JTG 24). Councillor Saint offered no advice;

(h) a meeting was held on 12 June 2013 at the Council offices. Mr Bird

instigated the meeting. Those present were Mr Bird, Councillor Saint, Richard Burke (Senior Officer of CEG), Roger Tustain (Senior Planner at Broadway Malyan) and at Mr Bird’s invitation Dave Nash and Paul Harris of the District Council. Mr Bird provided an email chain dated 11 June confirming attendees (attached at JTG 25). Proposals for the GLH project were discussed at the meeting. Neither Councillor Saint nor the Council officers present offered any advice. Mr Bird had no notes of the meeting;

(i) a meeting was held on 27 November 2013 at the Council offices. To

the best of Mr Bird’s recollection he instigated the meeting. Those present were Mr Bird, Councillor Saint, Richard Burke and Roger Tustain, Mr Bird provided an email confirming attendees (attached at

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

JTG 26) The GLH project was discussed at the meeting, Mr Bird had no written notes of the meeting. Councillor Saint offered no advice, neither did any officer of the Council present;

(j) the Bird Group had no record of a meeting with Councillor Saint on 26

March 2013. However, they were at the Council offices for a Steering Group meeting with JLR and the Council’s Core Strategy Team;

(k) a meeting was held on 2 April 2014 at the Council offices. Those

present were Mr Bird, Councillor Saint, Dave Nash, Roger Tustain and Richard Burke. The meeting was instigated by the Council because they were concerned about the status of the Bird Group’s negotiations with JLR and JLR’s need to acquire a large tract of the CEG/Bird Partnership’s land. Mr Bird provided an email detailing arrangements (attached at JTG 27). At the meeting the Council and Councillor Saint were advised that CEG and the Bird Group were going through a normal negotiation process and were willing sellers but they were not going to be bulldozed by a giant multi-national company; they wanted a fair price for the land. CEG and the Bird Group believed the Council could be influenced by inaccurate rumours created by oponents to the project. They also believed they had a good relationship with JLR. Mr Bird had no written notes of the meeting. Neither Councillor Saint nor the officers present offered any advice and were pleased to hear of the willingness to accommodate JLR;

(l) a meeting was held on 8 April 2013 at the Council offices. To the best

of Mr Bird’s recollection it was at his instigation. Those present were Mr Bird, Councillor Saint, and Peter Frampton of Framptons Planning. Mr Bird provided an email detailing arrangements (attached at JTG 28) The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the Local Plan Core Strategy, the discussions were regarding the Local Plan. Mr Bird did not have written notes of the meeting but provided related correspondence (attached at JTG 29). Councillor Saint offered no advice;

(m) he had extensive business interests and that Councillor Saint was a

public figure and there were numerous occasions when their paths might have crossed without him realising. He considered himself to be neither a friend nor an acquaintance of Councillor Saint but someone who he had contact with in the course of his business;

(n) he had not met Councillor Saint socially as individuals nor had they

visited each other’s homes. Mr Bird could not provide accurate information on how often there had been telephone conversations between him and Councillor Saint;

(o) Mr Bird’s company started work on formulating the GLH proposal in

late Summer 2011. In late 2011/early 2012 it became apparent to Mr Bird, to the best of his recollection, that government pressure would result in the Council having to identify appropriate settlements to meet housing requirements. It was this that was the catalyst to the GLH proposal.

Councillor Saint 4.36 Councillor Saint provided an initial response to the complaint in an e-mail

dated 29th August 2014 to Mr Grafton (attached at JTG 29).

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

4.37 He was interviewed by Mr Dolton on Friday 13th February 2015. The interview

was voice recorded and a transcript prepared (attached at JTG 30).

4.38 Councillor Saint later responded in writing to supplementary questions on 16th March 2015 (attached at JTG 31).

4.39 Councillor Saint’s evidence was that:-

(a) he joined Stratford District Council at a by-election in October 1998

and held various positions during that time; (b) he became Leader of the Council for the second time in May 2011. He

is also a member of Warwickshire County Council concurrently with his membership of Stratford District Council;

(c) as Leader of the Council he also had a portfolio and that included a

heading called Policy and Governance. As such he was the Lead Member on policy, including planning and housing policy, to which the core strategy of the Council's development plan is a part;

(d) in 2011 there was legislation going through parliament which removed

the regional spatial strategies with which local plans had to be compliant and, by May 2012, or even March 2012, it had introduced the national planning policy framework with which local plans had to be compliant;

(e) he said that at that time the Council were expecting to deliver 8000

houses over a twenty year period under a development process which was largely dispersal. The reason the Council introduced dispersal was because the previous government had put a constraint on development in settlements of less than 8000 population. That was an artificial constraint which was then removed by the current government so the Council felt free to actually have this dispersal policy;

(f) the choice of 8000 houses was based on consultants’ work and the

Council thought they could manage that and they had proposals to develop that. However, the rules changed and the Council had to re-address the particular housing need and the 8000 became 9500 by which time, looking at the delivery, the Council policy had also changed to introduce a new settlement. It was not until that time, in February 2013, that the Council started to contemplate that as a course of action;

(g) he had known Mr Tony Bird since 1998. He said that Mr Bird was a

member of the Conservative Party and they met from time to time at meetings of the Party. One such meeting was at Mr Bird’s residence, to introduce David Cameron to Party members. One aspect of Mr Bird’s work in the Conservative Party was with the Patrons’ Club. Councillor Saint had no involvement with the Patrons’ Club or management of the party;

(h) there was a project under Councillor Les Topham, when he was

Leader of the Council, World Class Stratford. It was sponsored by the former regional development agency Advantage West Midlands, and there was a steering group and he was on that steering group as a

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

Warwickshire County Council representative. He had no other office within the District Council or any executive position at that time;

(i) Tony Bird was also a member of that steering group so Councillor

Saint used to meet him every month or six weeks when that body met. There were some very important local people on the steering group such as the executive director of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre as a representative of the Stratford Business Organisations. Tony Bird and he would meet, round the table, and discuss strategic planning issues, not his personal interests;

(j) he would have occasionally met Mr Bird over a lunch or a dinner as

well in that context. He and Mr Bird developed an urban design framework between them which received an award from the Royal Town Planning Institute for good practice in strategic planning;

(k) when he became Leader of the Council in 2011, he had met with Mr

Bird on a number of occasions as he was a local developer and he sought Councillor Saint’s advice and he sought to provide Councillor Saint with information. These meetings were usually at Mr Bird’s request, which he arranged through Councillor Saint’s secretary;

(l) at these meetings they discussed varying degrees of detail and he

gave Mr Bird advice on Council policy and Mr Bird sometimes shared his ambitions with him;

(m) his visits to Mr Bird’s home had been to formal events attended by a

large number of individuals. In the case of the event attended by David Cameron. Councillor Saint was accompanied by his wife. He had not visited the property many times although his wife had known Mr Bird’s wife for a number of years through her work as a legal secretary. Councillor Saint said that despite this he had never been that close to Mr Bird that they would go round and meet each other as friends, or meet informally in a public house. His association with Mr Bird had only been a working relationship through organisations. Councillor Saint considered the relationship to be as associates with an amicable working relationship rather than a friendship;

(n) Councillor Saint had no recollection of a meeting with Mr Bird which

took place on 19 July 2012 at the Council offices and stated that at that time there was no GLH project on the table. The Council’s policy on housing was dispersal. No strategic housing sites had been identified including the site now known as GLH. That came many months later and therefore anything Mr Bird said would not have identified with things that had actually been put forward as proposals;

(o) he recalled a meeting on 29 August 2012 which was held at Mr Bird’s

request at his premises at Wildmoor Spa. Councillor Saint stated he met Mr Bird with no one else present although the meeting was in a very public place in the corner of the cafe refreshment area where all Mr Bird’s clients and other club users were quite free to move, and did so. As he met Mr Bird one to one he made some notes. These did not have any record or reference connected with Lighthorne Heath. They did refer to a site known as the St Modwen's site talking about issues related to the industrial areas at the former MOD site, not the airfield but this was still Long Marston. The notes also referred to discussion of some general principles of where employment land should be and

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

one or two issues over the police commissioner elections which were coming up because Mr Bird was a former member of the police authority that was being abolished. There may well have been casual inferences to other things which did not seem sufficiently important for him to take note of at the time. The notes were made in Councillor Saint’s diary which he used to collect information that he need to refer back to;

(p) if Mr Bird mentioned GLH and that he might have been interested in

developing there, Councillor Saint considered it erroneous of him to call it GLH because proposals Mr Bird did show him at the meeting afterwards did not relate to Gaydon at all, they simply related to Lighthorne Heath and Lighthorne and Chesterton. Mr Bird might have used a modern day description of something to talk about it before it was branded as such. At that time there were no proposals for a new settlement that has now come through;

(q) the next meeting with Mr Bird was at the Council Offices on 24

October 2012. Councillor Saint had no notes of the meeting so he presumed it was attended by Officers as he usually made notes when officers were not present. Councillor Saint stated that the meeting did not address the question of the Lighthorne Heath development as it was not discussed until the 5 December;

(r) from records Councillor Saint confirmed that Robert Weeks, the

Council’s Head of Environment and Planning, was present and that he would have taken notes. Also in attendance were David Austen and Geoff Downes, neither was associated with the GLH proposals. Councillor Saint said he knew David Austen particularly well because he was involved with other proposals and what was starting to be discussed were proposals for redevelopment of run down industrial areas in Stratford. He made a note that Mr Austen would have been involved with that. The meeting was not about the GLH site but was to do with Mr Bird’s other commercial interests;

(s) Councillor Saint confirmed that the next meeting with Mr Bird was on 5

December 2012. Also present were Robert Weeks, Richard Burke and Roger Tustain. They were the people that had always seen him whenever the Gaydon and Lighthorne Heath developments had been proposed. At the time of the meeting the GLH proposal still had not been branded. They brought a set of proposals to develop land called the Lighthorne Quarry by the B4100 which was adjacent to Lighthorne Heath which was probably part of Chesterton Parish.

(t) this was the first time that he had seen any concrete evidence of any

plans or aspirations of what they intended to do. More importantly, those proposals contained housing development in what was known as Lighthorne Quarry which he knew would be a very bad idea and as far as the Council’s general environmental policy was concerned. Councillor Saint said they asked for his opinion on those proposals and he told them that he did not think that the Council should approve development in Lighthorne Quarry but areas outside the quarry that did not encroach on the landscape or on the conservation area in Lighthorne village, might well be worthy of some consideration. Councillor Saint said he actually poured cold water on the proposals that they brought that day, for those reasons;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(u) he was disappointed because he did not get credit from the local community for defending their quarry that they wanted to see as a nature reserve and under the GLH plans that emerged later, that is designated. So, effectively, their visit helped him to help the community;

(v) at the time of that meeting the Council’s policy was still dispersal but

the Council was taking steps to commission some new work. By this time the regional spatial strategies had been abolished or were on the way to being abolished with the passing of the Localism Act. Clear guidance was coming from the Planning Inspectorate that the Council had, in effect, to review.

(w) in December 2012 the Council commissioned new research into what

the housing supply should be. The work was started by ERM in January 2013. Within a few weeks the Council had had a report and had decided to change the housing target to 9500, from 8000. When Mr Bird, Mr Tustain and Mr Burke saw Councillor Saint that day, they would not have been aware of that. Councillor Saint stated that as far as he was concerned Mr Bird and colleagues brought a set of proposals for a major development in that area without any knowledge that the Council’s proposals were going to change;

(x) the next meeting with Mr Bird was on 13 February 2013, again at the

Council Offices. The Council was starting to look at an additional proposal because of discussions around the District about how the development proposals might vary between different parts of a very large District. They ended up discovering that there was virtue in looking at development in an area that is now in the core strategy. Mr Bird came to see him on two or three occasions with some proposals. Councillor Saint said he did not have a record of exactly which ones because having checked his diary for that he did not have any notes so presumed that the meeting was fairly informal. By that time people were aware that the Council was moving towards looking for a new settlement but the meeting was only about industrial land, nothing to do with housing;

(y) he thought at one point Mr Bird had a desire to tell him about a

supermarket. Mr Bird had another proposal at one time to talk to him about a question of relocation of business interests which are all over the place in Stratford. Mr Bird had plans to develop on the edge of town and had a number of irons in his fire. Councillor Saint believed David Austen was at the meeting to discuss the Stratford relocation issue. He stated he had never met David Austen on anything to do with anything close to Lighthorne Heath or Gaydon or Chesterton or Lighthorne. The meeting on 13 February 2012 was not about GLH;

(z) when Mr Bird and David Austen and Jonathan Thompson from Cala

Homes came and talked to him they expected to be talking in camera. Because the Council had to work with businesses under the NPPF to deliver schemes and plan the schemes, it could not publish things which were commercially sensitive because that information was protected by law. Sometimes the Council had confidential meetings or confidential parts of meetings where the Monitoring Officer said "this is exempt from publication" and of course some of the material that Mr Bird would talk to him about came in that category;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(aa) he had discussed GLH with Mr Bird but it was wrong of Mr Turner to presume that every time they met they were there “cooking up” something he did not like;

(bb) the next meeting with Mr Bird was on 25 February 2013 once again at

the Council offices. Also in attendance were Jane Blackley and Glen Burghley. Councillor Saint stated neither Mr Burley nor Mrs Blackley had anything to do with GLH. GLH was not discussed at the meeting;

(cc) the next meeting with Mr Bird was held at the Council offices on 5

June 2013. He recalled the Council was starting to get serious about the regeneration of a site identified in the Core Strategy and Mr Bird would have met him to discuss matters that were not related to GLH.

(dd) by June 2013 work was progressing to enable a new settlement which

became the GLH development. Councillor Saint recalled rumours in the media about Mr Bird’s companies not having consulted with JLR about the development plans and that Mr Bird spoke to him about it but he could not recall on what occasion that discussion took place. When the original GLH proposal was put out to public consultation, JLR made representations and the Council had to change things. They actually objected to it and he did not know whether Mr Bird had consulted them or not, but he did, at some stage. Councillor Saint could not remember when Mr Bird had been in touch with them. He said it had been a difficult time because they had to compensate for the fact that JLR had got a little bit left behind for reasons that none of them had intended;

(ee) by this time (April 2013) the revised Planning Advisory Service/Local

Government Association code of conduct had been published. Councillor Saint acknowledged that that was prior to the meeting on 5 June and that the advice stated that an officer should be present at meetings. Councillor Saint stated that the code of conduct required an officer to be present if it was a decision making meeting and that the meeting on 5 June had been an informal exchange of information;

(ff) the next meeting with Mr Bird was on 12 June 2013. Councillor Saint

confirmed that Richard Burke (CEG), Roger Tustain and Broad Malyan were also present and that he was joined by Dave Nash and Paul Harris. The meeting was directly related to the Lighthorne new settlement. An officer was present at the meeting although no decisions were made. The meeting was simply to appraise them of the details that were going to come before the Council in July.

(gg) preparations were being made for a Council decision in July to satisfy

the demand for 9500 houses with a new settlement and that was the only one which they had in time to assess. Mr Bird’s team had done the transport work on it. They had done the highways issues and had looked at the general sustainability matters so, basically, since they first floated the scheme in March they had made various amendments and they did the Council the courtesy of bringing it in. They could have just taken it to Paul Harris, but they did not. They included Dave Nash and Councillor Saint and so they could all share in it and look at what was being proposed to actually put before the Council. Councillor Saint confirmed the meeting had been instigated by Mr Bird;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(hh) a call for sites had taken place in February/March and the Bird Group had submitted a proposal, accepting that it got amended and amended. Councillor Saint understood that this was the only proposal at that time. He stated the Council were directed by the Planning Inspectorate to have another call for sites so they could compare other facts. By this time the rest of the industry had caught on. That was decided at Council in July 2013. The next decision as a result of a consultation on the five options was in May 2014. During that time new guidance was provided which meant that they had to do lots of other things as well, including reviewing the housing numbers for a third time;

(ii) in response to the allegation that the time scale for the call for sites

was so tight that other developers could not have possibly worked up a good scheme in that timeframe Councillor Saint explained that the scheme that Bird, Burke and Tustain had brought back in December was also completely different from what they produced in March. Councillor Saint said that between March and the meeting in June they were working on the detail so that it was a fit proposal to put before the Council;

(jj) the next meeting with Mr Bird was on 27 November 2013 at the

Council Offices. Richard Burke and Roger Tustain were also present. Councillor Saint stated he did not have any notes of the meeting, however he recalled a “messy Autumn” because objections had reached high proportions in the parishes around the GLH proposal and the Council had also had new advice and guidance from the Planning Inspectorate. By this time JLR were involved. JLR, the commercial estates and Bird had to pare back their housing demands. It was about an adjustment of their scheme and what they put forward to Council when they met in June to prepare for a consultation with competition alongside them. Part of the new guidance meant that the Council had to compare the proposal. It could not just put one forward. He did not know what he would have done if there had still only been one proposal on the table. He confirmed that there was no record of any officers being present at the meeting although he could not recall for certain;

(kk) that there would not be any bias because by this time the Council

were talking to other developers. These included Cala Homes, Cemex, and Stoneythorpe although they came in very late in the day. These were the main schemes. These people at this time were starting to introduce new ideas;

(ll) the meeting Mr Bird had with the Council on 26 March related to

supplementary planning guidance. Mr Bird met officers and not Councillor Saint. It was to look at the parameters for development;

(mm) the next meeting Councillor Saint had with Mr Bird was on 2 April 2014

held at the Council Offices. As far as he could recall that was to do with regeneration of a site identified in the Core Strategy. A Council officer, Dave Nash, attended the meeting to discuss with him some of the details of the information presented to Council. The meeting was instigated by the Council because the Council was concerned about the status of The Bird Group's negotiations with JLR. Although he acknowledged that his recollection was not clear he remembered the discussions over brand issues however he had no involvement in

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

discussions about dividing the site between JLR and Bird. Councillor Saint said all he did was take the policies for how many houses they were going to get. Mr Bird did a lot of work independently with the officers as well but then tried to accuse him on the record of holding a meeting without an officer there;

(nn) on 8 April 2014 there was a meeting at the Council Offices attended

by Mr Bird and Mr Frampton. Councillor Saint recalled that the meeting was about the regeneration of a site identified in the Core Strategy. Councillor Saint explained there was a letter from Mr Frampton which he asked Mr Bird to produce because there was no certainty that the site was going to be developed. There was a consultants report which Councillor Saint thought was manifestly wrong in suggesting that the Bishopton and Island area was not needed for planning. Councillor Saint was keen to promote it because it was untidy. Mr Frampton gave some useful evidence to the Council relating to the Bishopton and Island site. Councillor Saint thought that Mr Bird was involved because he was interested in being the developer. The GLH site was not discussed at this meeting;

(oo) there was another meeting involving Mr Bird not referred to in the

allegations. Councillor Saint confirmed this was in the Leader of Warwickshire County Council’s office on 25 October 2013. Very senior directors of JLR attended with senior transport officers. If JLR were going to use part of that land they had to discuss that with the highway authority. Councillor Saint was there not as a County Councillor but as Leader of Stratford District Council and Mr Nash was also there. He did not know who convened the meeting but it was not him. The meeting took place to bring together Mr Bird, JLR, Stratford District Council and Warwickshire County Council on mutual issues of delivery because it was felt there was a risk of “show stoppers” emerging. Councillor Saint proposed they agreed not to have any “show stoppers” because although he was not promoting the site he thought on all the other work that had been done that it was the best one to meet the early demands on housing. Other sites, Cala Homes at Long Marston, Cemex at Long Ishington, were all going to be too far in the future to deal with the requirement to have a five year land supply;

(pp) the meeting was about GLH which by then had become a formal

proposal although no decision on it had been made at that stage. The decision was not made until 12 May 2014. The discussion was about how the Council would act if both of those interests were working together and the Council as a planning authority had to facilitate them getting planning approval for what they intended to do;

(qq) a number of meetings took place with other parties, notably with Cala

Homes but at that time the Council had not decided to have the new call for sites. The Council had a policy where a new settlement was going to the existing JLR site and there was a proposal then for the old JLR site to take some of the new GLH proposal land. That meant that because that was on the table they had to consider it regardless of any considerations of anybody else. There were other opportunities for other developers to meet with him although this was later in the process;

(rr) at the time the JLR development was the only one in the frame and

the parameters had changed considerably from it being a housing

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

development to it being a housing and JLR development. They were working on what had already been established and been made public. Other schemes that were in opposition to the JLR scheme were considered later. Proposers of those schemes were able to meet officers;

(ss) he first knew of the GLH proposal on or about 4 March 2013. Anything

that happened on 19 July and 29 August was very superficial to the process. On 5 December the policy was still total dispersal. Mr Bird and Mr Burke and Mr Tustain brought to him, with Rob Weeks in attendance, a set of proposals which had been grossly changed. Councillor Saint said he objected to them building in an area which now they were going to protect for ecological reasons. At that time, the Council had not decided on an additional settlement. March was the first time he knew about GLH because that was the first time he knew about a development with those boundaries because earlier they had been on a much smaller parcel of land. The proposals coming forward were not on the boundaries of what, today is called GLH. Therefore it would be inappropriate to refer to it as being GLH at that time;

(tt) the boundaries of GLH as known today were not established until the

developer had submitted a proposal with those site boundaries in March 2013. Any other development related to a different site, albeit one that overlapped GLH, but it was nothing like the site that has since emerged as GLH. When it is referred to before March 2013 as GLH he did not recognise that designation;

(uu) the SHLAA Panel was an officer panel that worked on a call for sites in

2012. He did not receive any output from them in a timely way so if the site at Lighthorne Heath had been offered to that team he would not have known about it and it was dealt with by officers that are no longer in the employment of this Council. He confirmed that he did have a copy of what they did produce but they did not produce it until much later. He thought it went through earlier in 2013 but he did not have recall of the date. Councillor Saint went on to explain the strategic planning modelling exercise which was identified as reported in February 2013. He said he had to approve that and he felt he did so under duress because it included parameters that were not the Council’s policy;

(vv) at the time the officer group was working on the proposal he was not

aware that Mr Bird and the County Council were working on something in the area that is now referred to as GLH. The Officers processed all of the paperwork. The purpose of a SHLAA was to identify sites to then send for approval, not to decide what the sites should be. He had no knowledge or input to the modelling work being done by officers;

(ww) he had not informed Mr Bird or any of his colleague developers of the

potential or likely change of the Council's strategy from dispersal to new sites prior to January 2013. He said it was not until February 2013 that they had the report from ERM that put up the housing numbers that made it an issue for discussion. In the meantime the officers sent out for a call for sites because they knew every time things went wrong they had to alter the timetable;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(xx) with one exception all the meetings referred to were at the behest of the developer. The one exception was to seek clarification on matters relating to regeneration. He stated he had met with other developers in this time. He had two or three meetings with Sainsbury's who were interested in having a development in the town. He had meetings with Denys Shortt a businessman in the town who wanted to move into a new site and settlement. He had meetings with Richard Smith of Opus Developments. All these meetings were at their request. Councillor Saint also referred to a meeting with Jonathan Thompson of Cala Homes on 31 March (2014) and four or five meetings with him since then. These were all to do with proposals concerning Long Marston Airfield (LMA);

(yy) he doubted whether Tony Bird would accuse him of bias towards him.

The accusations had come from an aggrieved community. A survey of developers in this area was done, he hoped it would find that he was fair to all of them;

(zz) he acknowledged that the Freedom of Information request revealed

that no meetings had been held with Cala Homes although when he went through his diary with his PA and she admitted it was there he was very disappointed that the Chief Executive’s office had not corrected the Freedom of Information response when that was revealed;

(aaa) no decisions were made at any of these meetings. All of the decisions

were made at either Cabinet meetings or Council meetings. They were the decision making bodies. He said he did have powers to make what are called portfolio holder decisions but these are extremely few and far between and on major issues like planning policy he had to take it to full Council. No one else could make a decision so everything has been done openly and in the public domain;

(bbb) he explained about the imposition of the ‘whip’ on the voting at the

meeting held on 12 May 2014 stating that he did not have the powers to impose a whip on a decision. The rules for members of the Conservative Party and the rules for Conservative groups at councils were done under arrangements approved by the board of the party at the highest level. Their mandatory rules to groups stated that they had to meet at some point after the distribution of papers prior to each meeting of the council to discuss the agenda for the meeting and consider any other business. Members were expected to support decisions taken at Group meetings on all issues other than matters of conscience and matters specific to the ward. So, the dispensation to act independently of the Group did not have to be granted by Councillor Saint, it was automatic. Councillors Mills and Scorer were exceedingly open with him and he was very receptive to listening to their concerns and indeed helped them and guided them to deal with it. So any perception that he acted inappropriately either in exercising the rules or forcing people to vote against their judgment or there being recriminations afterwards was completely ill advised, it just did not happen;

(ccc) suggestions he had ostracised Councillor Scorer were incorrect. In

fact he had been at a meeting with Councillor Scorer that week and their relationship was quite amicable;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

(ddd) the LGA/PAS guidance was issued in April 2013 and that the guidance covered officers being present at meetings, arranging a meeting via officers and making sure that notes were taken. Some of the meetings referred to in the complaint took place prior to the guidance being issued. He acknowledged that one of the meetings held after the guidance was issued may not have had an officer present but stated that the meeting was an informal discussion not a decision making meeting. He usually had an officer with him at these meetings, including the one with Cala Homes. Mr Bird would say he was entitled to meet Councillor Saint as an active businessman in the area and resident. He did not consider any code issues arose;

(eee) he was aware of the code of conduct for Councillors and that it was for

others to judge whether his actions were a breach of the code. He thought they would find it very hard to accuse him of such. He felt he had been a councillor for a long time and he had seen different standards regimes at work. He was aware of the need to act with due probity and he would do that. However, he could almost understand why people ask questions and think "is there something erroneous going on" when he met developers but he did not think he acted inappropriately at all;

(fff) he provided a copy of a letter sent to members of the Group on 28

April 2014 for the Council meeting on 12 May. The letter (attached as appendix 23) stated that at a Cabinet meeting it was agreed to put forward five consultant studies. The final decisions were made at full Council. While he was aware that some members might have preferred Long Marston to Lighthorne Heath, the recommendation was based on clear messages to support JLR, good transport links, concerns about the deliverability of the Long Marston site, concerns about the deliverability of Stoneythorpe which was one of the others that appeared, and impact of new development of Long Itchington on a local service village that would have merged it with neighbouring Southam. He was telling his Group members a rationale. He was not telling them what to do. He was saying that that was the rationale behind their decisions and then there would be two member briefings. That was not applying a whip;

(ggg) the Group Secretary extended the booking at the Falcon on 6 May to

have a Group meeting on the core strategy and so they did discuss it. The Group Secretary did that of his own volition.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

5. Summary of the material facts 5.1 The Council formulated a Core Strategy Document for the years 2011-31.

The Council's Proposed Submission Core Strategy published in May 2014 proposed a minimum of 10,800 new homes in the District over the plan period.

5.2 Councillor Saint was the Leader of the Council and an Executive Member with a portfolio covering Policy and Governance. Part of the policy portfolio covered planning and housing policy. Since becoming Leader of the Council in 2011 Councillor Saint had been involved in the production of the Council’s Core Strategy which included plans to meet the predicted housing need during the plan period.

5.3 Councillor Saint saw meeting developers to discuss how the Council and the developers might deliver the required housing development as an important part of the development of the Core Strategy. During the period covered by my investigation it is evident Councillor Saint met a number of developers including Mr Bird and representative(s) of Cala Homes. There is no suggestion or evidence that other developers were denied meetings with Councillor Saint.

5.4 Mr Bird is the Chairman of the Bird Group of Companies which is based in Stratford upon Avon and is involved in various business activities including property development. Mr Bird is a member of the Conservative Party and is actively involved in fund raising for the Party. Records show that Mr Bird met with Councillor Saint on 12 occasions between July 2012 and April 2014. Most of these meetings were on matters directly or indirectly related to the development of the Council’s Core Strategy. The following meetings took place:-

19 July 2012 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices;

29 August 2012 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at Wildmoor Spa (a Leisure Club, part of the Bird Group of Companies);

24 October 2012 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices with Jeff Downes and David Austen;

5 December 2012 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices with Robert Weeks, Richard Burke and Roger Tustain;

13 February 2013 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices with David Austen;

25 February 2013 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices with Jayne Blackley and Glen Burley;

5 June 2013 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices;

12 June 2013 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices with Richard Burke, Roger Tustain, Dave Nash and Paul Harris;

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

25 October 2013 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the offices of Warwickshire County Council with the Leader of the County Council, Dave Nash and representatives from JLR;

27 November 2013 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices with Richard Burke and Roger Tustain;

2 April 2014 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices with Dave Nash, Roger Tustain and Richard Burke;

8 April 2014 - Councillor Saint and Mr Bird at the Council offices with Peter Frampton.

5.5 There are no formal records of many of the meetings although most were

attended by officers of the Council or colleagues of Mr Bird. From the information gathered during my investigation it is evident that in most cases the meetings were at the instigation of Mr Bird and were arranged to enable Mr Bird to provide information to the Council.

5.6 During the period covered by my investigation, that is July 2012 to April 2014, the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) produced revised guidance for Councillors and Officers on Probity in Planning. This was published in April 2013. The guidance is very clear on how Councillors should deal with planning applications: It is not entirely clear whether the guidance is intended to cover strategic planning issues such as the development of the Core Strategy.

5.7 Further guidance was issued by the Council’s Monitoring Officer on the Development of the Core Strategy, Implications Relating to the Members’ Code of Conduct. This was published on 14 April 2014 which is the end of the period covered by my investigation. However this does provide specific guidance on how Councillors should deal with developers. In particular at paragraph 18 it acknowledges that “discussions with potential developers are encouraged where it is likely to be helpful to the Council in developing its Core Strategy”. The guidance goes on to say that Councillors should not be drawn into negotiations with potential developers which should be done by officers and a written note made of all meetings.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

6. Councillor Saint's and Mr Turner’s additional submissions

Councillor Saint’s submissions

6.1 The following comments were received from Councillor Saint on the draft

version of this report:-

I have no personal observations to make on the report that I believe to be objective and accurate, so I am content that it stands as drafted. This is of course dependent on Mr Turner not making any further accusations that need to be challenged.

Mr Turner’s additional submissions

6.2 The following comments were received from Mr Turner on the draft version of this report:-

“May I request that you reopen your investigation on the following grounds;

1. That there are key witnesses that have not and could have

been contacted given the material provided to support the complaint.

2. Crucial evidence that was made available but does not appear to have been considered in your current conclusion.

3. Some of the responses, particularly from Cllr. Saint, to questions asked, are in my view at best misleading, sometimes contradictory or vague and have been judged at face value. I would have expected more cross referencing and corroboration from other potential witnesses. As a result, I must question some of the conclusions reached based on naïve acceptance of Cllr Saint’s comments and a process that in some areas appears to have lacked rigour.

4. Two additional statements provided to Chesterton Parish by Anthony Hodges, owner of Long Marston Airfield on 27 November 2014 (after my last submission of material to SDC monitoring officer in October 2014). These statements show the bias and predetermination of SDC, led by Cllr. Saint, to the GLH development. [Mr Hodges’ statements are attached at JTG 32]

In the first statement,(copy provided) Mr Hodges said that the first he knew of a change of SDC policy, with the potential for new settlements, was when his solicitors informed him of the Call for Sites in February 2013 and he had to scramble together an application to meet the March 4 deadline. Mr Hodges states that he feels himself to have been severely disadvantaged by not knowing earlier of the potential policy change - as the Bird Group clearly did know from their many meetings with Cllr Saint. In order to support my argument to reopen the investigation and to show elements that could draw a different conclusion to the one you have reached, I have been through the draft report in detail and have the following observations.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

At the end of this response, I have looked at the SDC code of conduct and the Localism Act 2011 and suggest that Cllr Saint has not adhered to the code in several areas.

Section 1.5; is inaccurate. This executive summary point refers to section 4.39 (xx). In the text, disappointingly, no year is given for the March 13 date on which Cllr Saint first met Jonathan Thompson of Cala Homes, it must be March 13, 2014 - a full eight months after Stratford District Council revealed a change of policy in seeking a new settlement, and simultaneously announced GLH as the sole contender. In the near two-year period between July 2012, when Mr Bird says he first made Cllr Saint aware of “GLH” (or “Lighthorne Heath and Lighthorne and Chesterton” as Cllr. Saint refers in section 4.39 (p). Cllr Saint would have used this wording in order to try and muddy the waters. The ONLY material difference between first area for development and what appears in the residential housing as GLH appears in the SDC draft Core Strategy is that housing on Lighthorne Quarry has been replaced by housing on the Old Syche in Chesterton. The outline area for housing development is exactly the same) and the adoption of the Core Strategy on May 12, 2014, this one meeting with Mr Thompson is the only example Cllr Saint can give of seeing a single housing developer, other than those promoting GLH who seem to have been given unlimited access. I regret having to say this, but paragraph 4.39 (xx) typifies the unsatisfactory nature of your report. The date of the meeting with Mr Thompson is incomplete and, of Cllr Saint’s claimed meetings with “developers”, Sainsbury’s is a retailer, Denys Shortt (correct spellings) a software designer and Opus Developments deals only with commercial properties. This blatant attempt at obfuscation by Cllr Saint is neither researched nor challenged. As a result your Summary at 5.3 I suggest cannot be correct. The whole point of the allegation of favouritism and unfairness - that Cllr Saint improperly conferred an advantage on Mr Bird in direct contravention to the Code of Conduct - is that (as we now know) from July 2012 Cllr Saint was regularly meeting Tony Bird in private and otherwise and discussing the GLH project. What is vitally important is not just what was said, but what was not said. Nowhere does Cllr Saint claim to have said what he should have said, namely: “Tony, that’s very interesting but SDC policy is currently for housing dispersal, with no new settlement, and if and when that changes I’ll let you and the other developers know and you’ll all have a fair and equal crack of the whip.” Continuing with section 1.5 of the Executive Summary, it is naive of you to say, as you do, that no evidence was presented that Cllr Saint had declined to meet other developers. Of course he did not - because, until Mr Thompson’s belated request, no one asked for one. They presumably did not do so because as far as they were aware the policy of dispersal was still being firmly adhered to. Only Mr Bird, by virtue of Cllr Saint’s agreement to have repeated meetings with him to be updated on the GLH project, was being given a clear indication that the policy might change. That must be so because otherwise Mr Bird’s requested follow-up meetings would have been entirely pointless.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

Section1.6; the testimony of Dave Nash states that he did not come under any particular pressure or influence from Cllr Saint to favour any particular scheme, it must be remembered that Mr Nash is an employee, and presumably a loyal one, of the Council of which Cllr Saint is both Leader and chairman of the Employment and Appointments Committee. Mr Nash was appointed by that committee in February 2013 specifically to deliver the Core Strategy and Mr Nash must rapidly have become aware that Cllr Saint was meeting Tony Bird and showing great interest in the GLH plan. It is surely not contended that Cllr Saint kept the GLH plan secret from Mr Nash - the SDC employee to whom it would have been of the greatest professional interest?

A more seemingly independent view might have been obtained by your enquiry from interviewing Mr Nash’s predecessor, Stephanie Chettle, who is said to have initiated the contemporaneous traffic modelling of the GLH site by Warwickshire County Council. Cllr. Saint referred to Stephanie Chettle at his appearance on 29 August 2013 at the Antelope pub in Lighthorne. This was a key part of the material submitted to support the complaint. Contrary to Cllr. Saint’s evidence JTG 29 SECTION 6n, Cllr. Saint’s comments were recorded of which he is fully aware. Since my initial complaint to you, FOI requests to both SDC and WCC on this traffic modelling point have been blocked. Your enquiry was or is the obvious opportunity once and for all to resolve this suspicious contemporaneity of Mr Bird working on GLH and, as he now admits, briefing Cllr Saint on it at the precise time the WCC traffic modellers were looking at the same number of houses then being planned by Mr Bird for the same general plot, including land bounded by the B4100, the M40, Junction 12 of the M40 and Chesterton Wood. There must somewhere have been a note or email or a verbal instruction to Mr Dauncey at WCC to include it as Scenario Four in his Strategic Transport Assessment report of October 25, 2012 (not presented to SDC Cabinet by Cllr Saint until four months later, in February 2103, when it suddenly becomes an urgent matter). A taped recording of a meeting exists at which SDC Chief Executive Paul Lankester spoke of refereeing blazing rows between Stephanie Chettle and Cllr Saint on whether what is now known as the GLH project should be traffic modelled. One interpretation is that Cllr Saint already knew of the Bird Group’s work on GLH, Mr Bird now having admitted starting work on it as early as late summer 2011, and Cllr Saint wanted to avoid that suspicious “coincidence”. The omission in your current draft report to pursue and grasp the significance of this traffic modelling point and interview Ms Chettle, Mr Lankester and Mr Dauncey about it to date is a further reason to reopen the investigation and concentrate on this area.

Section 1.7; of your Executive Summary, you contend that Cllr Saint was not directly responsible for the decision by the ruling and majority Conservative group to impose a Party Whip ordering group members to vote for GLH, or presumably face disciplinary action, at the decisive Council meeting on May 12, 2014. Despite your investigation uncovering a letter from Cllr Saint to group members, dated April 28, 2014, the text of which has not been seen by me, but which apparently instructs/exhorts them to vote for GLH, you are seemingly willing to accept the fine distinction that it was the group as a whole which decided to impose the party whip with Cllr Saint, despite being its Leader and sending that letter, not playing a leading role in that

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

decision. This surely can be interpreted that Cllr. Saint did impose overt influence and failed to follow the Code of Conduct from an “Objective” perspective.

In his written evidence to your enquiry, Mr Bird admits to a first meeting with Cllr Saint on July 19, 2012 at the SDC offices to discuss what is now known as the GLH project, privately and without officers being present or formal notes being taken. There is a follow-up private meeting including discussion on GLH on August 29, 2012, on Mr Bird’s premises at Wildmoor Spa. Meeting number three re GLH was held at the Council’s offices on December 5, 2012, with officers and other GLH developer representatives present. Cllr Saint is said to have given no advice. This is in direct contradiction to his recorded public statement outside the Antelope public house in Lighthorne on Thursday August 29, 2013, frequently repeated including to your enquiry ( at 4.39 (s) (t) and (u) ), when he said that he told Mr Bird and other GLH developer representatives to remove from Lighthorne Quarry houses planned as part of the proposed development. That tape recording, although offered to your enquiry, has not been requested nor the contradiction explored. Assuming he is telling the truth on the tape, it is difficult to see how Cllr Saint could have given more helpful advice. There are therefore three meetings between Cllr Saint and Mr Bird before the Call for Sites of January/March 2013 when other developers were given the first hint that policy might change and it would be advantageous to them to start preparing new settlement plans. Continuing to examine Mr Bird’s written testimony, a fourth meeting re GLH took place at the Council offices on June 5, 2013 with no reference to officers being present and a fifth, this time with officers and other developer representatives present, on June 12, 2013. Again Cllr Saint is said to have offered no advice. But would he not have noted that, as per his oft-stated earlier advice, some of the planned GLH houses had now been moved across the other side of the B4100 (Old Syche) and off Lighthorne Quarry? There are therefore five meetings between Cllr Saint and Mr Bird to discuss GLH between July 19, 2012 and July 11, 2013, on which latter date the plans for GLH were first revealed in press reports ahead of the SDC Cabinet meeting of July 15, 2013 where GLH was declared by SDC to be their firm and only new settlement choice. At least two and possibly three of these meetings took place without officers being present and without official notes being taken - in clear and flagrant violation of the SDC Code of Conduct in force at the time. Cllr Saint appears to have been able to convince your enquiry (4.39 (ee) ) that the absence of officers or official notes did not matter because they were not decision-making meetings i.e. Cabinet or Council. This floats the premise that private meetings which might contravene the Code could only take place within the full public glare of a Cabinet or Council meeting, which is palpable nonsense. The commonsense reason why private meetings without officers or official notes are banned under the Code is to stop information being passed or deals being done which are later translated into Cabinet or Council

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

proposals. That is precisely what appears to have happened here. Cllr Saint has admitted breaking the Code. You have seen fit in the current draft of the report to clear him. This is a further reason to reopen the investigation and re-examine some of the evidence available or interview other witnesses who may fail to corroborate Cllr. Saint’s view of the world.

Further, in relation to these pre-decision meetings is the quote given by Cllr Saint to the Independent newspaper in September 2013 that he told Mr Bird: “Tony, if you come up with a good scheme, I’ll support you, if you come up with a lousy scheme you’ll get nowhere.” When interviewed by your investigator, Cllr Saint seems to have stated baldly that he will not comment on press reports. Despite the apparent relevance of this never-disputed quote, this statement seems to have been meekly accepted and the matter taken no further. This approach needs to be reconsidered and the investigation reopened. A further meeting to discuss GLH was held, according to Mr Bird, at the Council offices in November 2013. By this time other developers had - in Cllr Saint’s most revealing phrase to your investigator at 4.39 (hh) - “caught on” i.e. belatedly realised that a new policy was coming into force and that another developer had a head start. No other developer was offered such a meeting or similar facility. Further evidence has come to light on the secret nature of GLH development planning since my complaint was made. It has subsequently been revealed as a result of a question from a local councillor at the SDC Council Meeting in November 2014, that a GLH development liaison body has been in existence since August 2013. This body, also known as the South Warwickshire M40 Corridor Steering Group produced no published minutes until this question was posed and the GLH liaison body revealed. No local Parishes were aware or invited to attend. Were similar liaison bodies afforded to other potential development sites such as Long Marston? I request the investigation is reopened as a result of this new evidence and my contention that failing to reveal this “body” or publish minutes until SDC was “found out” is another reason for Cllr. Saint’s conduct to be challenged with his cabinet portfolio for “ Leadership & Governance” which includes planning and housing policy. Where is the openness in this part of Cllr. Saint’s approach? According to Mr Bird’s evidence, two further meetings re GLH took place at the Council offices and at the Council’s instigation, the first on March 26, 2014. The year 2013 would appear to be incorrect at your 4.35 (j). Another meeting was held on April 2, 2014, specifically to broker negotiations between Jaguar Land Rover and the GLH developers over land-dealing to facilitate the GLH scheme. No comparable arrangements were offered by SDC to any other developers to chair negotiations with third parties to help smooth their paths for their schemes.

Throughout Cllr Saint’s interviews, he appears verbose, vague and often clearly deliberately misleading. However, he admits knowing Mr Bird since 1998 (4.39 (g)), to have sat on various public bodies with him (4.39 (h) (i) and (j)), developed an award-winning urban design planning framework with him (j) and, following Cllr Saint’s appointment

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

as SDC Leader for the second time in May 2011, to have had what seem to be numerous and regular other meetings with him, some of which seem to be one-to-one although the point is not explored. At 4.39 (l) and (k) Cllr Saint admits that Mr Bird sought his advice and he gave it, albeit with the caveat that he was advising on Council policy. This is totally at variance with the claim that at the now-declared private meetings, including December 5, 2012, he gave no advice at all. How many meetings does it to take to say…. “Dispersal”? At 4.39 (p) and elsewhere he tries to defend the palpable untruth that the first he knew of the GLH scheme was when Broadway Malyan deposited it at the SDC offices on March 4, 2013, and that the proposals from Bird Group/CEG/Broadway Malyan he had previously seen were not exactly the same and therefore cannot be described as GLH. Again, this ludicrous proposition seems to be accepted by your investigation without demur. Cllr Saint’s contentions along these lines, at 4.39 (ss) and (tt) are simply accepted, unchallenged. No maps are provided showing the GLH proposals as of December 5, 2012 and March 4, 2013. It is submitted that they would be substantially the same and include identical tracts of land. This has not been a rigorous and testing examination. At 4.39 (s) he tries, and apparently succeeds in bamboozling your investigator that the December 5, 2012 meeting was about a development at Lighthorne Quarry. As has seemingly been made clear countless times, in fact the plans were about developing what is now substantially the GLH site between the B4100 and the M40 with the addition of Lighthorne Quarry. At 4.39 (t) Cllr Saint admits offering Mr Bird et al advice on how to get the scheme passed by dropping the Quarry plans and instead extending their planned site on the other side of the B4100. How can this clear example of assistance, offered to no other developer, not be favouritism and therefore in breach of the Code? And how can this not be a clear nudge and a wink that a new settlement is being contemplated ? Mr Nash says at 4.26 (k) that this December 5, 2012 meeting seems to have been the “catalyst” for the January/March 2013 Call For Sites. Exactly. Cllr Saint now knew that Mr Bird’s GLH plans, of which he had been appraised at least five months earlier, were now nearly ready. This is underlined by his response at 4.39 (gg). When looking at new settlement plans in June 2013, Mr Bird’s GLH plan was by far the most advanced. To paraphrase, by virtue of their head start, the Bird Group had placed themselves way ahead of the game. When Cllr Saint says at 4.39 (kk) that by the Autumn of 2013 SDC was talking to other developers he is perfectly correct although - had he and SDC had their way - GLH would already have been voted into the Core Strategy as the sole new settlement site in the July. It is only what he tellingly describes as a “rebellion” in the affected parishes which prevented it. Meanwhile work to promote GLH was being carried on behind closed doors while lip-service was being paid to statutory consultation procedures. A meeting took place at the Warwick offices of then Stratford District Councillor and Warwickshire County Council Leader Cllr Isobel Seccombe, with SDC, JLR and GLH developer representatives, on October 25, 2013 to liaise over the GLH plan (4.39 (oo) ). Again, no similar facility was apparently offered to any other developer. Cllr Seccombe was at that time a director of The BARD

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

Campaign, a limited company set up to oppose development at Long Marston and therefore with a vested interest in promoting development elsewhere within the SDC area. This meeting was not made public, nor was other activity secretly to promote GLH which was elsewhere being carried on apace, including the setting up of the South Warwickshire M40 Corridor Steering Group between SDC, WDC and WCC which held eight meetings between August 8, 2013 and August, 11, 2014. This goes way beyond the “duty to co-operate” with neighbouring authorities enshrined in the NPPF and no comparable discussions were taking place with, say, Wychavon District Council and Worcestershire County Council re Long Marston Airfield. The argument that the GLH developers were being handed special treatment is overwhelming. Cllr Saint admits in 4.39 (oo) ) that by October 25, 2013, he had already decided that GLH was the best scheme available, in other words, contrary to the Code, his choice was pre-determined.

Section 7; the reasonings relating to Cllr Saint operating in his “Official Capacity” in sections 7.1-7.4 are indisputable. It may, ultimately, be a question of semantics but the Code of Conduct says: “You must act solely in the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person ..” . If this Clause is taken as it stands then Cllr Saint must be clearly guilty as charged and your deliberations from 7.6 onwards on close association etc are in my view not relevant. Your reasonings in general from 7. onwards appear to be tortuous, legalistic and subjective, overly-reliant on the critically-unchallenged evidence of Cllr Saint and Mr Nash, seizing on the few tiny scraps of defence which Cllr Saint has been able to provide and going out of your way to dismiss anything to the contrary. The guidance issued in April 2014 by the SDC Monitoring Officer on the development of the Council’s Core Strategy, Paras 18-21, is very clear. When examining the evidence, Cllr Saint failed to adhere to any of this guidance and his argument that these guidelines “cannot be applied retrospectively” clearly shows his approach with regard to the several unminuted, officer unattended minutes, arranged at the behest of the developer. In summary, many of the parishioners I represent now believe that, from around July 2011 onwards, a powerful political cabal on Stratford District and Warwickshire County Councils found a commonality of interest with a sympathetic developer in promoting a strategic site far away from Long Marston, and this arrangement to their mutual benefit is now being covered up. Cllr Saint is clearly part of this and has not behaved in line with the SDC Code of Conduct with principles of integrity, objectivity, openness and honesty open to question as demonstrated not only by his actions leading up to this complaint in July but as revealed further by the evidence he has presented in Volume 2 of this draft report. I must point out in Cllr Saint’s evidence in JTG 29, when he states “his willingness to make an appointment to meet representatives of Chesterton & Kingston Parish when they requested it”. This is indicative of clever use of words masking inaction. As a Parish we asked for a meeting on 7 December 2013 & 25 January 2014 via our

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

then Ward Member Richard Hamburger. Over eighteen months no meeting has occurred in spite of the Parish still being open to have the meeting. Does this represent the code of conduct that we should expect from a public servant and leader of a local district council? I now ask for your investigation to adopt the necessary robustness to explore what has really been going on. I urge you to go back and look at the additional evidence provided and available from other witnesses whose names are in the material provided. If I can help in any way to get to the truth including provision of copies of recordings taken, then I would only be too willing.

6.3 I have carefully considered the points raised by Mr Turner on the draft report.

I have concluded that these do not raise any significant issues not covered in the draft report. In reaching my conclusion I am particularly mindful of the key issue, that is, did Councillor Saint breach the Council’s code of conduct by improperly conferring an advantage for Mr Bird or his company.

6.4 To reinforce my reasoning on this point it is evident that the meetings with Mr

Bird were at Mr Bird’s request. There is no evidence or suggestion that Councillor Saint sought to meet Mr Bird. It is also evident that no attempt has been made to conceal the details of these meetings either by the Council or Councillor Saint. Other developers and landowners with an interest in the Council’s preparation of the Core Strategy could have sought similar meetings with Councillor Saint or Officers of the Council.

6.5 The substantive issue with regard to the code of conduct is not whether Councillor Saint conferred an advantage on Mr Bird or his company but whether Councillor Saint’s conduct was improper. I have gone into some detail in my reasoning to explain why I have concluded that Councillor Saint’s conduct was not improper, detail which Mr Turner refers to as tortuous, legalistic and subjective.

6.6 With regard to Mr Turner’s reference to a statement made by Councillor Saint to the Independent newspaper. It appears to me that the statement “if you come up with a good scheme, I’ll support you, if you come up with a lousy scheme you’ll get nowhere” is a clear indication that Councillor Saint had an open mind and would base his decision on the merits of the scheme not who the developer was.

6.7 I have considered all the other issues raised by Mr Turner in his comments and have concluded that these are either covered adequately in section 7 of this report as originally drafted or are not directly relevant to the matter referred for investigation. I consider there is no information which warrants reopening my investigation as Mr Turner requests.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

7. Reasoning as to whether there have been failures Official Capacity 7.1 The Council’s Code of Members' Conduct states:

“You are a member or co-opted member of the [name] council and hence you shall have regard to the following principles - … Accordingly, when acting in your capacity as a member or co-opted member: You must…”

7.2 It is therefore necessary for me to establish that Councillor Saint was acting in

his official capacity as a member of the Council for the code to be relevant.

7.3 In this case the allegations relate to Councillor Saint’s meetings with Mr Bird and more specifically his influence over the adoption of the Council’s Core Strategy. In the case of the latter it is quite evident that Councillor Saint was acting in his official capacity when attending formal meetings of the Council when the Core Strategy was considered and adopted.

7.4 For the avoidance of any doubt or ambiguity I have also considered whether Councillor Saint was acting in an official capacity when meeting Mr Bird, and other developers, to discuss issues relating to the Core Strategy and other development proposals. I am mindful of Councillor Saint’s position as the Portfolio Holder with responsibility for Policy which included the Core Strategy. Having regard to this and that, with the exception of one meeting, all the meetings were held at either the District Council offices or the County Council then I have concluded that Councillor Saint was acting in his official capacity at the relevant times. It therefore follows that the code of conduct did apply.

Improperly confer an advantage

7.5 The relevant provision of the code, as identified by the complainant and referred for investigation by the Monitoring Officer, is set out in paragraph 2.1 of the Code:-

You must act solely in the public interest and should never improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person or act to gain financial or other material benefits for yourself, your family, a friend or close associate.

7.6 From this the starting point for my consideration must be whether or not a

friendship or close association existed between Councillor Saint and Mr Bird.

7.7 It is evident that Councillor Saint knew Mr Bird not only through his official position as the Councillor with main responsibility for planning policy and Mr Bird’s property development interests. There is evidence of connections through Mr Bird’s membership of the Conservative Party and his activity as a fund raiser for the Party. This in itself does not indicate a friendship or close association.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

7.8 Guidance produced by the former Standards Board for England in May 2007 suggested that someone “with whom you have a close association is someone that you are in either regular or irregular contact with over a period of time who is more than an acquaintance. It is someone a reasonable member of the public might think you would be prepared to favour or disadvantage when discussing a matter that affects them. It may be a friend, a colleague, a business associate or someone you know through general social contacts”.

7.9 The issue of friendship and close association was explained in some detail in the Standards Board publication “the Case Review- the Code Q&A number one volume one. In this Case example 8 relates to an allegation that a member failed to disclose an interest in a planning application considered at a Council meeting. The Member and one of the applicants were both members of the same community association, the complainant claimed they had both served on the association for ten years. The Ethical Standards Officer (ESO) considered there was a long-standing relationship between the member and the applicants through their common involvement in the community association. However, evidence suggested that their relationship was soley based on their connection with the community association and was not a personal friendship. The ESO concluded that the member and the applicants were acquaintances but not friends. The publication goes on to provide some questions for Members and Monitoring officers to consider when considering if friendship exists, these are;-

“How many times do the two people meet?

Where do they meet?

Do they regularly attend the same social events?

Do they know each other’s families?

Do they visit one another’s homes?

Are they close in other ways? These questions should never be taken in isolation. It is the cumulative evidence of a close relationship that will establish friendship. A certain amount of caution should also be exercised. Most Members know each other and will often attend the same functions because of their positions in the community. A level of relationship above and beyond that which usually exists between colleagues and political associates will be required to establish the existence of a friendship.”

7.10 From this it is evident that to constitute a breach of the code, (that is to

improperly confer an advantage or disadvantage on any person or to gain financial or other material benefits for yourself, your family, a friend or close associate) there needs to be something improper or a relationship. I have carefully considered the allegations in the context of the relationship between Councillor Saint and Mr Bird and the evidence available. I found nothing to substantiate any relationship between Councillor Saint and Mr Bird beyond the disclosed relationship relating to Mr Bird’s business interests and Councillor Saint’s position on the Council. It follows that I have found nothing during my investigation to confirm that Councillor Saint’s conduct was improper in the context of the code of conduct. Neither is there any evidence to substantiate the existence of a friendship or close association that would satisfy the tests set out above.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

7.11 The other matters raised by the complainant relate to the guidance issued by the Local Government Association and the Planning Advisory Service relating to Members’ involvement in planning. The first observation on this point is that the publication is guidance. There is no evidence that the Council had incorporated this guidance into its code of conduct. Nevertheless I have considered the points raised.

7.12 There is evidence that some of the meetings between Councillor Saint and Mr Bird did not fully accord with the guidance provided and that some of these meetings were held after the current version of the LGA PAS guidance had been issued. However, I am mindful that, with the exception of the meeting held at Mr Bird’s business premises, all of the meetings were held on Council premises. In most cases others were present albeit not always officers of the Council. I also note that very few of the meetings were recorded in that notes were not produced. Some of this is clearly contrary to the guidance issued and has given rise to the concerns expressed by the complainant. However it is difficult to establish how this disregard for the guidance might constitute a breach of the code of conduct.

7.13 I have also given consideration to the allegations made of bias shown by Councillor Saint. Predisposition, predetermination or bias are covered in the LGA PAS guidance issued in April 2013 although similar guidance was issued in 2009. Whilst the guidance is primarily directed towards councillors dealing with planning applications the section on this subject covers when the local plan is being considered. The guidance states inter alia:-

“Members of a planning committee, Local Plan steering group (or full Council when the local plan is being considered) need to avoid any appearance of bias or of having predetermined their views before taking a decision on a planning application or on planning policies. Courts have sought to distinguish between situations which involve predetermination or bias on the one hand and predetermination on the other. The former is indicative of a ‘closed mind’ approach and likely to leave a committee’s decision susceptible to challenge by Judicial Review. Clearly expressing an intention to vote in a particular way before a meeting (predetermination) is different from where a councillor makes it clear they are willing to listen to all the considerations presented at the committee before deciding on how to vote (predisposition). The latter is alright, the former is not and may result in a Court quashing such planning decisions. Section 21 of the Act also provides that a councillor should not be regarded as having a closed mind simply because they previously did or said something that, directly or indirectly, indicated what view they might take in relation to any particular matter.”

7.14 Having regard to this guidance and the evidence gathered I find no evidence

that Councillor Saint had made any indication of how he was going to vote on the matter in question prior to it being considered by the Council’s Cabinet on 28 April 2014. Clearly the issues were different when the matter was considered by the Council on 12 May 2014 where the Council considered the recommendations of the Cabinet. However this is a procedural issue that is inevitable whenever a committee makes recommendations to a Council as

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

the members of that committee have already formed a view on the issue. It is my opinion that this does not form predetermination or bias in this context.

7.15 It is further alleged that Councillor Saint used his position to improperly promote the GLH option during the Council’s consideration of and preparation for the adoption of the Core Strategy. Evidence of Councillor Saint’s input into this process is best provided by the senior officer dealing with the project. I have therefore given careful consideration to the evidence provided by Mr Nash the Council’s Policy Manager - Planning & Housing. In his statement Mr Nash sets out in detail the various stages of the preparation and consultation followed by the Council. Mr Nash also details Councillor Saint’s involvement in that process.

7.16 Mr Nash’s evidence on this matter can best be summarised by his statement at the end of paragraph 17 and in paragraph 18 where he states:-

“I am able to state that throughout this process Councillor Saint did nothing to particularly promote the GLH option or to seek to influence technical work that had been commissioned. In parallel with the LAG (Leaders Advisory Group) process Cllr Saint was provided with regular briefings via one to one meetings with me. Again, he did nothing to particularly promote the GLH option.”

7.17 On the basis of that evidence from the senior officer of the Council dealing with the project, who would be the most likely individual to be put under pressure if the allegations were substantiated, it is difficult to conclude that Councillor Saint’s conduct was inappropriate.

7.18 The final matter relates to the issue of the Party Whip being imposed on the matter for the meeting of the Council on 12 May 2014. The guidance issued by the LGA and PAS also makes reference to the use of political whips. The guidance states:-

“A local code on planning should also address the following more specific issues about lobbying:

Planning decisions cannot be made on a party political basis in response to lobbying; the use of political whips to seek to influence the outcome of a planning application is likely to be regarded as maladministration.

Planning committee or local plan steering group members should in general avoid organising support for or against a planning application, and avoid lobbying other councillors.”

7.19 I note that the Councils revised “Members’ Planning Code of Good Practice” adopted in September 2013 states at paragraph 7.5:-

“Don’t decide or discuss how to vote on any application at any sort of political group meeting or lobby any other Member to do so. Political Group Meetings should never decide how to vote on a planning issue.”

7.20 From the documentation provided by the Council it is evident that this Code of Good Practice replaced an earlier version. The report to the meeting of the Standards Committee held on 14 September 2014 shows the same provision in the earlier code with the following words deleted from the end of the paragraph:-

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

“... and for that reason it is inappropriate to apply the party whip with regard to any application.”

7.21 It is therefore evident that the Council had in place some provision in its

Planning Code relating to the imposition of a whip on planning matters. However, in my opinion, there is some ambiguity in the exact meaning of the provision in the earlier code and to a lesser degree in the revised code. This ambiguity stems from the generally regarded practice that Party Whips should not be used when determining planning applications (or any other regulatory function such as Licensing). In this case the Council was considering the Core Strategy which is planning policy rather than a specific application. The earlier code referred to above, the one in force at the time of the Council meeting in May 2014, appears to be quite specific in that it states “it is inappropriate to apply the party whip with regard to any application”. I have concluded, on balance, that the imposition of the party whip on this occasion was not a breach of the Council’s Members’ Planning Code of Good Practice.

7.22 Nevertheless I have considered Councillor Saint’s involvement in that part of the process. It is clear that the imposition of the Whip on a decision is not within the powers of the Leader of the Council, it is a matter to be determined by the Political Group at its pre-meeting. Having regard to that fact it is evident that Councillor Saint was not directly responsible for the imposition of the Whip.

7.23 I have considered all the other issues raised including the alleged ostracising of Councillors Mills and Scorer. The evidence provided by both of these Councillors shows that neither were ostracised or treated inappropriately by Councillor Saint following the meting of the Council in May 2104.

7.24 I therefore consider that Councillor Saint has not failed to comply with the Council’s code of conduct in respect of the complaint.

CONFIDENTIAL REPORT

of 46

8. Finding 8.1 My finding is that there has not been a failure to comply with the code of

conduct of the authority concerned. Jonathan Goolden BA(Law) Solicitor Investigating Officer 29th July 2015

volume 1 report - stratford-on-avon district · confidential report page 6 of 46 2. councillor...

Documents