Sale of Woodend Road Car park

The decision to sell the car park was made in 2024 and the asset was marketed in December 2024 and subsequently by way of a Facebook post in February 2025. This was when residents I first became fully aware of the Council's decision. 

​

Three barristers advised me that marketing assets valued over £25,000 constitute a "disposal of assets," and therefore, the marketing conducted prior to the Executive’s decision was unlawful. I shared this legal advice with the Council; however, their legal position differed. They then blamed me for spreading misinformation because I had shared the barristers' opinion with the public! 

​

The decision made on 20th May was flawed and was subsequently called in by two Conservative councillors, Cllr Josh Thorn and Cllr Jonny Cope. I was invited to attend the Council's Performance & Scrutiny Committee meeting on 12th June 2025 as a contributor, which meant that I could send evidence to the Council in advance and submit a 5 minutes speech. 

​

I could not have done of the work I did without the great help and support of the residents of Surrey Heath, those who delivered leaflets, spread the word, signed petitions, shared photographic evidence with me, made comments on social media. My heartfelt thanks go to all the residents and councillors who supported the call to reverse the Exec's decision. 

​

The councillors called in the decision on the grounds that:

1. There was a live petition urging the Council not to sell Woodend Road car park or other key community assets valued over £25,000. This petition is scheduled to be debated by the Full Council in July.

2. There was a legitimate question as to whether the Council had truly accepted “best value” for the asset, and whether this should prompt a reconsideration of the decision.
    

In support of this call-in, I submitted several documents demonstrating that the Executive had failed to properly consider:
 

1. The petition outcome itself and another survey I conducted with engagement from about 1000 residents overall

2. The protected characteristics of key user groups, including worshippers, people with disabilities, women, and children.

3. The potential reduction in footfall for local businesses.

4. The expected increase in parking demand due to the reopening of a community centre and the church, both of which rely on the car park for school pick-up and drop-off access.

5. The Council’s misrepresentations, including claims that the Woodend Road car park was underused and that the St Barbara’s Church car park was a newly built facility.
    

PUBLIC DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL 

​

The chamber had overwhelming support for our campaign from local businesses and residents, but sadly, not much from their local representatives. Cllr Jonny Cope however made excellent speech in support of the residents and challenging the Council's flawed process in reaching the decision to sell the village's car park. 

Some of the Liberal Democrat councillors did their best to interrupt the process by raising numerous points of clarification; by diverting attention to my previous political campaigns and my various roles in the community and professional life; by trying to undermine the needs of local businesses through irrelevant questions about their past intentions; by alleging and scaremongering that, if the Council changed its mind, it could face legal action from the current buyer (a claim the monitoring officer confirmed was incorrect); and by undermining the petition’s impact, claiming it related to other assets as well as the Woodend Road car park.
 

Concerns were raised by other councillors such as Cllr Wheeler that due process was flawed, as the petition would be considered only after the event—but this concern was ignored.

​

Cllr Finan-Cooke, Cllr Lee and some other Liberal democrat councillors repeatedly stated that the campaign was purely political, as if that somehow undermined its validity. The term 'politics' originates from 'policy.' Any effort to influence or change a law, policy, or decision made by a government or local authority is, by definition, political. Their presence in the chamber was, therefore, political in itself.

​

The outcome of the meeting was mixed news for the community:
 

1. Both of the sought outcomes were refused, meaning the Executive's decision will remain in force and the community will lose a vital piece of infrastructure—despite more homes being built. The Liberal Democrats did not accept the officer’s proposal to defer the Executive's decision until after the full Council had debated the matter. This undermines their stated commitments to stronger communities, accountability, and transparency.

2. The Council will write to Surrey County Council to seek clarification regarding arrangements for children's pick-up and drop-off. They will also seek clarification on whether the church car park can increase its capacity—indicating an admission that the Executive had not properly investigated the parking issue.

3. A Lib Dem ward councillor admitted that the Council should have accepted the only unconditional offer that would have kept the car park as a car park. Unfortunately, other Lib Dem councillors attacked the business owner instead.

4. Concerns were raised about the Council making decisions without adequate information—and about their doing exactly what they had once criticised the previous administration for.

5. It was clarified that, despite 850 signatures, the Full Council has no power to reverse the Executive’s decision. Only the Executive can choose to review it. It was also clarified that, since the Executive’s decision still stands, they can proceed to sign contracts for sale at any time. This renders the petition practically ineffective. Why does this matter for democracy? People read the petition, took time to participate in the process, provided evidence, and sacrificed their time and energy—only to discover it would have no real impact on the outcome.
    

Residents left the Chamber unhappy, one said the Council could have given time to the community to raise funds and buy the land but the Council did not do that. 
 

Initially, I wanted to focus solely on a legal challenge, having received advice from barristers that the Council’s marketing process was unlawful. However, residents wanted to engage through democratic channels. We did that—and sadly, the process failed them.

It is now clear that broken promises by a political party, disregard for community infrastructure, and neglect of local business and resident needs are dragging Surrey Heath in the wrong direction.

​