I see there are many calls for resignations from the board of trustees at Walton Charity.
This follows their disgraceful abuse of the planning system, whereby the charity submitted and inexplicably withdrew three successive applications to build offices on green space at Severn Drive.
All three applications were practically identical and each one met with fierce opposition from the public.
If those applications ever had any merit, why were they not allowed to proceed to a full hearing before the planning committee?
After all the trouble and expense unnecessarily caused by the charity, the very least they could have done was allow a vote to take place.
I am horrified to learn how much wasted time has been incurred by Elmbridge Council.
Officers had to work very long hours to read all the hundreds of letters received from residents.
The merits of all the letters, on both sides, had to be carefully evaluated and much research had to be done.
A detailed report had to be prepared.
In that report, the planning officer recommended refusal of the application.
The third withdrawal by the charity occurred at the 11th hour, when everything was in place for council members to make a firm decision, one way or the other.
During the preceding months, our ward councillors and members of the community had gone to a huge amount of trouble to resist the plans.
I began a petition, which was carried on by several others, night after night.
Some 1,504 signatures were obtained and 686 individual objections were sent to the council over the course of the three applications.
At no stage did the charity take any notice of those objections.
The repeated applications were effectively unchanged.
Now, the chief executive and her trustees must answer some serious questions.
How much charity money has been wasted? With all the fees of applications and reapplications, the fees of architects, consultants and so on, people are speculating that the charity’s outlay must be in excess of £50,000.
That money could and should have been spent on charitable causes.
The cost of wasted resources at the council is probably immeasurable.
Certainly the waste of council time must have cost a lot more than the application fees, so council taxpayers are footing the bill for the balance.
Why was the public consultation so woefully limited and why was all the opposition completely ignored?
Does the charity now confirm unequivocally that the site has been abandoned and that it can now be leased once again to the council?
Do the trustees not care about losing support for their charities, or the enormous reputational damage sustained? Is it true that their allotments are now being considered an alternative site for Charity House?
The public deserves candid answers – not spin or evasion.
MICK FLANNIGAN
Walton
- Send your letters to: letters@surreycomet.co.uk
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here