QUESTION & ANSWER REGARDING HARPER'S STADIUM COSTS

Question from Dr Graham Hibbert to GBC 13.4.06

I wish to ask the Leader of the Council two questions concerning the application to build a multipurpose stadium on Stoke Park and the appeal against the application’s refusal.

In October last year the Council responded to a question concerning the cost to Guilford residents of the 23 appeals made by Mr Harper and his companies over the past few years. I recall the Council’s answer to this to be around £800,000 of costs directly associated with the appeals themselves and a number of millions caused by the delay to the rebuilding of the Civic.

I have spent my career in private industry and fully appreciate the contribution it can make to local community life. However, I believe that the right to pursue a private business can come into conflict with the interests of society at large when unfair pressure is exerted by a business on democratic processes. The number of appeals made by this applicant and his companies seem to me to indicate a reluctance to accept the will of society as expressed through its elected representatives. The outcome is not only the financial cost to Guildford residents, as set out in the Council’s reply last year but also, in my perception, a reduced quality of life for local people. This comes from uncertainty about the preservation of local open space and delay in developing civic amenities; it also distracts local officers from focusing on projects which the majority of residents would support.

With this in mind, I am amazed that one of Mr Harper’s companies is choosing to appeal the unanimous decision of the Council to refuse his application to build a multipurpose stadium on Stoke Park. I say multipurpose because the main use of the stadium cannot be to support local football as misleadingly stated in press releases by the applicant. The proposed multipurpose stadium is to hold 8000 people whereas less than 100 people regularly support the local team. The applicant has not made the business plan for the stadium clear but it cannot be founded on revenue from the local team and must be based on the other activities referred to in the application but not clearly specified.

Councillors throughout Guildford rejected this proposal on the grounds of its impact on traffic, the unsuitability of the site, its negative impact on Spectrum and the environment, and the refusal by the applicant to consider other alternative locations. I understand that the applicant has not tried to work with the Council to find an alternative location to progress his ideas but instead chooses to appeal the decision, with the appeal being held in public in Guildford over a 3 day period in May this year.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Council gave this application a fair hearing at which all representatives of local bodies throughout Guildford were allowed to make their views known. Opinion was clearly against the proposed development and I judge that the Council’s unanimous decision fully reflected the views of the people of Guildford, as indicated by the significant majority of individual letters from private citizens protesting the application. I further note that since the rejection of the application, the Council has made it very clear that the public parkland on which the applicant wished to site his development is not for sale. This makes the appeal a complete waste of officers’ time and public money. I would therefore like to ask firstly how much money Mr Harper’s stadium application and appeal will have cost the Council, and secondly whether any of this can properly be charged back to Mr Harper or his companies so that the burden does not fall on the Guildford council tax payer.
Dr G Hibbert


Guildford Borough Council Meeting 13 April 2006
Reply By Andrew Hodges to question from Dr Graham Hibbert
I thank Dr Hibbert for his question. He reflects correctly on the costs that have had to be borne by the Council in relation to the various appeals etc that have been made by Mr Harper and his companies over the years, all of which are perfectly legal. But , of course, Mr Harper does not share in these costs as he is not a resident of the Borough.

Turning to Dr Hibbert’s specific questions
With regard to the costs to the Council of processing the Stadium application thus far, I am unable to provide precise information, as the Council does not hold it. Planning Case Officers are not required to keep a record of the hours expended in working on planning files and it is not possible to provide an estimate with any degree of accuracy.

In respect of the likely cost of dealing with the Public Inquiry the amount spent is dependent on, amongst other things, the number of conferences with barristers and the requirement to instruct expert witnesses. The inquiry itself is set down for three days and may well go to four. Council officers will give evidence on behalf of the Council and together with Surrey County Council and expert witnesses such as the Surrey Wildlife Trust.

So far the appeal has cost the council an estimated £10,000 in barrister’s fees. As I indicated, the Council does not usually keep a specific record of how much it costs to respond to each individual appeal, so a calculation has been made. Officer time spend is estimated at some 30 working days, and comes out at about a further £10,000 but when you add in the costs of providing accommodation and photocopying, phone bills etc, and the cost of bringing in SCC and SWT people for which we do not have costings that total continues to rise. As Dr Hibbert reminded us in his question Mr Harper and his companies have cost us in other matters of around £800,000, but of course there are the additional costs to be incurred as a result of the delays to the replacement of the Civic Hall as a result of the failed legal action.
Turning to the second question, Can any of the costs be charged back to Mr Harper and his companies – the Simple answer is No. Any applicant has a statutory right of appeal against refusal of a planning application
However, The Secretary of State or Planning Inspector may make an award for costs where one party has behaved 'unreasonably' and has caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense. The mere exercise of a right of appeal would not in itself give rise to a finding of such behaviour.
Dr Hibbert referred to the fact that the Council as owner of the land has said that it is not willing to make it available to allow the development to proceed. This is not a planning matter and is not a basis on which an award of costs against Mr Harper could be sought.
Ends