Dorset Council Democratic Director | weymouthneighbourhoodplandemocracy.org.uk

The Monitoring Officer

Dorset Council

Colliton Park

Dorchester, DT1 1XJ

26^th February 2023

FAO Jonathan Mair,

I write to you to express concern that the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan democratic process has been adversely impacted and this has distorted the most recent survey results. This has been caused by the publication of inaccurate information put out by a group of four Preston Ward Councillors followed up by a ward meeting. I ask that this concern is recorded as some of the survey results have been materially affected and I would like this acknowledged and question 7 and 8 result discounted within our Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement.

You will have received from members of the Steering Group formal complaints against the 4 Preston Ward Councillor’s. This letter concerns the impact that their action has on the democratic process of neighbourhood plan engagement, consultation and referendum.

I attach the offending leaflet which contains misleading and inaccurate data relating to the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan. This was put out in response to a public survey, which ran from 17^th January to 1^st February 2023. This was approved by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and endorsed by Weymouth Town Council.

The WNP 3^rd Public engagement Survey was run on-line using Survey Monkey it was accessed from the Weymouth Town Council website which included all the supporting papers to the survey. Results have been analysed and show a change of responses received following the issuing of the ward member’s leaflet on the 23^rd January and ward member’s public meeting on the 25^th January.

I do not know what was said at the public meeting. But after the 22^nd January it is noticeable that tone of the responses shifts from being generally supportive to being strongly critical on a number of topics not just those identified in the leaflet. It is also particularly noticeable that most textual comments relate to sites located within the Preston Ward boundary.

As Chair of the Steering Group, I have been asked by the members of the Steering Group to raise a formal notice.

The misleading and inaccurate statements in the leaflet.

The leaflet states the following (quoted text in Red):

‘Major Developments proposed behind both Brackendown & Budmouth Avenue at the end of both Southdown and Budmouth Avenues and on Wyke Oliver Farm.’ The Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan is still being drafted – there are no developments being proposed. The questionnaire clearly states that ‘An independent site assessment has been completed. We have shortlisted sites for further evaluation (including consultation, consideration of the environmental impact and discussions with landowners).’ Question 8 refers to consideration being given to the 2 sites mentioned along with 4 other sites.

The leaflet goes on to say:

‘Lib Dem led Weymouth Town Council have produced proposals for a Neighbourhood Plan for the whole of the Town. It includes the largest area of housing development in Preston that we have ever seen. Much larger than anything previously proposed. Our estimate is that it is for 500 homes. This is not a sensible plan.’ Again, misleading and inaccurate. The Plan is being developed by a Steering Group comprising 6 members of the public and 4 councillors. The Steering Group are still developing the plan and have yet to draft proposals. The ward members estimated a figure of 500 homes for these two sites where the Site Options and Assessment report shows only between 168 and 191 homes. The exaggeration continues claiming it to be the largest site the ward members have ever seen but there are far bigger housing estates in Preston.

Further the leaflet says:

‘Weymouth Town Council has produced its plan and is now going to consultation on their proposals. We think the plans are awful. Apart from the 500 homes in Preston, they are suggesting the same amount of housing in Lodmoor between the wetlands and the park. They also want to remove about 500 parking spaces from the Town, never mind the impact on businesses. This repeats the same misleading and inaccurate information as above. But in addition, says it is now going to consultation – we do not go to formal consultation until September 2023 as we are still engaging the public, as recommended in the NPPF and Locality guide. The leaflet states the plans “are awful” despite the fact that no such plans currently exist. The third sentence says ‘they are suggesting the same amount of housing at Lodmoor ‘ – again this is misleading and grossly inaccurate – the published report accompanying the survey states potential for between 105 and 140 homes not 500. Finally, the last sentence suggests the loss of 500 car parking spaces. We have made no estimate of the number of spaces; there are 2 car park sites listed in the 11 sites being considered but the published Site Shortlisting report states that should car parks be built upon them some parking elsewhere will be needed.

The influence on the survey.

Almost 573 people took part in the online survey. 137 completed the survey before 23^rd Jan and 436 after.

The major obvious impact is that on Q8 where the 3 sites in the leaflet are referenced the responses changed. Please note the leaflet also referred to car parks which features in Q7 as 2 of the 5 sites being considered.

Responders were asked to indicate support by voting Yes. The raw results are shown below.

Of the 573 responses Yes No Don’t Know

Question 7 35% 34% 31%

Question 8 18% 64% 18%

Analysis of the responses on a day by day basis shows the results changing dramatically after the 22^nd January.

Question Period Yes % No % Don’t Know %

7 Up to 23^rd Jan. 57 19 24

From 23^rd Jan 28 39 33

8 Up to 23^rd Jan. 42 32 26

From 23^rd Jan 11 74 15

Analysis of the written comments shows the following.

Period In Favour Opposed Concerned Other

Question 7 Pre 23^rd Jan 48.6% 21.6% 16.2% 13.5%

23rd to 25^th Jan 38.2% 14.7% 44.1% 3.0%

Post 25^th Jan 29.5% 43.8% 19.6% 7.1%

Question 8 Pre 23^rd Jan 56.4% 34.7% 8.7% 0%

23rd to 25^th Jan 12.3% 59.6% 22.8% 5.3%

Post 25^th Jan. 8.0% 70.8% 20.1% 1%

On Q8 there was a clear majority in favour of the sites being considered before 23^rd Jan but after the 23^rd Jan this shifted to a clear majority being opposed.

A similar shift can be seen on Q7 with a reversal of the response pattern after the 23^rd Jan.

Within the text of the responses to Q7 and Q8 there are direct references to ‘500 homes’ and ‘500 car park spaces’ as well as criticism of making a plan without consultation. Nearly all the objections refer to the Wyke Oliver, Budmouth Avenue and Lodmoor tip sites and not the other sites under consideration.

What weight should the survey results have?

It is suggested that this section should be recorded within the NP Consultation Statement.

The Survey Monkey record of the survey is reviewable by time/day of comment and by individual responders.

Throughout the survey period Weymouth Town Council continued to prompt people, through social media, to have their say. There is evidence that this continued to remind people to respond.

The Neighbourhood Plan Survey Group does not have the resources to conduct a forensic analysis of this data but believe that Survey Monkey Analyse Data and the textual analysis to-date does show the survey results have been affected by a strong response from residents of the Preston Ward concerned about what they were told was Planned Development on sites near to their homes. This was misleading as the plan is still in development and the number of homes mentioned was grossly inaccurate.

The validity of the responses to Question 7 and 8 has been compromised. The survey responses in these areas should not be taken as representative as the response post 22^nd January was largely based upon misleading and inaccurate information relating to sites in the Preston ward.

Superficially the responses to the other 8 questions are generally positive but no analysis has been done on whether the responses shifted in time so some caution is required in interpreting whether this is a true representation of the views of the people of Weymouth given the high proportion of Preston ward who were prompted to respond with misleading and inaccurate data.

Lessons Learnt

When the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan goes through its formal Regulation 14 and Regulation 16 consultations local councillors should be reminded of the following:

It is the duty of ward members to represent their wards. However, ward members should be reminded to be accurate in their statements so as to not mislead their residents who look to them as figures of authority and fact.

When the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan goes through its formal Referendum local councillors should be reminded of the rules governing the referendum and their conduct.

In previous surveys we asked people to identify themselves by either their postcode or by selecting from a list of locations in Weymouth. This enabled us to judge whether the responses to our survey were representative of Weymouth as a whole. We shall ask this when we go to formal consultation.

Conclusion

We have had difficulty in raising public awareness of the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan. We have asked councillors, many times, to encourage their residents to respond to the numerous consultation opportunities. However, we expected this to be done in a balanced manner recognising the value of a Neighbourhood Plan, drawing attention to matters within the survey that related to the ward and the wider benefits to Weymouth Town and Dorset of the developing Neighbourhood Plan. However the leaflet, and presumably the public meeting, have misled residents of Preston Ward by including misleading and inaccurate data.

We feel it is important to put this incident on record so that undue weight is not placed on this survey’s response with respect to questions 8 and 9 relating to the need for affordable homes and for suitable sites in Weymouth. As the Local Authority, please confirm that this position is acknowledged and accepted. If needs be I can provide a copy of the leaflet and the survey responses.

The Steering Group would welcome, advice and support to avoid any similar future occurrence as it has discouraged many volunteer lay members of the Steering Group who feel that their efforts to support the community are being distorted by a campaign against the emerging Neighbourhood Plan by a small group of councillors.

Yours sincerely

Cllr David Northam, Chair of the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Copy to

Weymouth Town Council Town Clerk

Cllr David Harris, Leader of Weymouth Town Council

Matt Piles, Director of Place, Dorset Council

Cllr David Walsh, Portfolio Holder for Planning, Dorset Council

Cllr Spencer Flower, Leader of Dorset Council

Matt Prosser, Chief Executive Officer, Dorset Council

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Jonathan Mair
Sent: 31 March 2023 09:30
To: David Northam <cllrdavidnortham@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Cc: Jane Biscombe <JaneBiscombe@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>; David Harris <cllrdavidharris@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Interference with Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan process.

Dear Cllr Northam

Thank you for your email. I am sorry that I overlooked your email of 26 February and did not reply to the accompanying letter.

In your letter you referred to (councillor code of conduct) complaints from members of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group against Preston Ward Councillors. You may well have heard from the complainants that I have decided not to refer those complaints for investigation and my reasons for that decision are set out below.

One of the principles of conduct in public life is honesty - that councillors should be truthful. You and the complainants believe that a leaflet published by or on behalf of Conservative councillors was misleading and inaccurate. In responding to the complaints I have explained that there will be instances where it will be plain and obvious that the requirement for councillors to be truthful has been breached and formal action is needed. However, in other instances the situation can be more nuanced, as in the case of concerns about the possible consequences of emerging planning policy. That is the situation that I believe we are dealing with here, with rival interpretations of what consultations and emerging planning policy might mean. In Dorset we are a little over 12 months away from elections and already I am seeing the signs of heightened political sensitivity. It is not appropriate for and I do not intend myself or colleagues in the complaints team to be drawn onto the slippery slope of beginning to be seen to arbitrate the accuracy of political statements and concerns set out by councillors.

I have told one of the complainants that I do not doubt for a moment the huge voluntary effort by all involved in the development of the emerging neighbourhood plan and how frustrating it must be to find that work publicly criticised, disagreed with and in your and their view misrepresented. Emerging planning policy is a topic that can though by its nature be divisive and people, councillors included, are entitled to criticise the work done by others, to disagree with them and to present concerns, even if ultimately those concerns might prove to be misplaced. When they do this, when they criticise, disagree and present concerns councillors are required to do this in a way that is not disrespectful, that is not damaging to their office and the council of which they are a member and not done for their own improper advantage. However, the code of conduct does not prevent councillors from expressing, challenging, criticising and disagreeing with views, ideas, opinions and policies in a robust but civil manner. Nothing in the complaints that were made led me to believe that councillors had crossed that line.

As part of the assessment of the complaints the complaints team consulted an independent person. Like me the independent person did not believe that the complaints should be referred for investigation. He did though advise that the complaints were suitable for local resolution. Given that one of the complainants was unwilling to accept an apology and given my comments about council officers not being drawn into arbitrating the accuracy or validity of political statements and concerns I could see no scope for a local resolution.

Your request that I should issue a reminder to councillors about their responsibilities appears to be based upon the premise that the leaflet in question was misleading and that the consultation has been compromised but as set out above it is not for an officer to judge the accuracy or otherwise of this sort of leaflet and its possible impact. The referendum on the Neighbourhood Plan will be run in the usual way and I will not be issuing any special reminder to councillors about your responsibilities. To do so would be bound to be construed as agreeing that the leaflet was misleading when no such judgement has been reached.

Once again, I apologise for overlooking your original email.

Yours sincerely

Jonathan Mair

Director of Legal & Democratic (Monitoring Officer)

Senior Leadership Team

Dorset Council

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: David Harris <cllrdavidharris@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2023 11:33:49 AM
To: Jonathan Mair < REDACTED
Cc: Jane Biscombe <JaneBiscombe@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>; David Northam <cllrdavidnortham@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Interference with Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan process.

Dear Jonathon

I agree that impacts and words like plans and proposals are going to be interpreted in a different way by different political groups, especially near an election. However when a publication contains clear lies then I do not think it matters whether an election is due or not. As you will have seen in the leaflet it clearly states that the plans/proposal, or whatever you call them, were for 500 houses in Preston and 500 houses in Lodmoor. This is a complete fabrication and is the critical complaint that the steering group were making and the point that my colleague was making about the undue influence that the leaflet had on the consultation returns that were generated. Is the making up of figures acceptable by councillors?

Yours sincerely

David

-------- Original message --------

From: David Northam <cllrdavidnortham@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>

Date: 31/03/2023 11:19 (GMT+00:00)

To: David Harris <cllrdavidharris@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>, Jonathan Mair < REDACTED

Cc: Jane Biscombe <JaneBiscombe@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>

Subject: Re: Interference with Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan process.

Thanks David, for responding so swiftly.

I too am dissatisfied with the way in which the poor behaviour of certain councillors has been dismissed as normal. I have tried to act in a responsible manner and to advise the NP team likewise. There are obligations on councillors which are spelt out in the NPPF with respect to NPs, I had thought that the Democratic Officer would address and advise both our NP team and the councillors on standards that would be expected.

I am returning from my holiday today and will address this more fully on my return.

Sincerely

Cllr David Northam

From: safcol REDACTED
Sent: Saturday, April 1, 2023 11:05 AM
To: David Northam <cllrdavidnortham@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Interference with Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan process.

David,

You know what they say about protecting your own.

I will put some sort of reply together over the weekend for your initial thoughts, in order that we have something to discuss at the SG.

The options as I see it are to keep the correspondence with Jonathan Mair going, get the chair of WTC at full council to remind WTC councillors of their conduct and the need to stick to factual evidence where available, go to the Ombudsman ( which could be an even bigger distraction and become very divisive as this whole business 'mushrooms').

Will speak soon.

Colin

6^th April 2023

Jonathan Mair

Director of Legal & Democratic Services

Dorset Council

Email: Jonathan.Mair@dorsetcouncil.gov.uk

Dear Mr Mair,

Thank you for your response. We note your decision not to refer the complaint for investigation and acknowledge your apology for the delayed reply.

I have now had an opportunity to meet and discuss this with colleagues on the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.

Whilst surprised at your decision, given the detailed weight of evidence provided, it is particularly unhelpful that you appear to have chosen to dismiss the complaint as a local party political spat, which quite frankly those of us with no party political affiliations, who have volunteered our time to serve the community find particularly disrespectful.

In the interests of transparency any reasonable person would expect that each of the 4 points of complaint would be referred to and the reasons for rejection stated in clear and specific terms relative to the 3 instances of written evidence provided.

Two key points that you have seemingly failed to give consideration to are -

a) The offending leaflet stated 500 homes. The published reference shows 168 to 191 homes. How is this ‘nuance rather than plain untruthfulness’?
b) It is clear to any reasonable person that informal consultation was being undertaken and that the question based format did not in any way resemble a neighbourhood plan in any form whatsoever.. It is surely misleading to criticise a document that did not exist?

In particular, I draw your attention to ‘Honesty’, ‘Objectivity’ and ‘Openness’ within the Nolan principles, repeated in the published Code of Conduct at para 1.2, in this respect. We ask that you think carefully about the precedent this sets for the future in terms of a wanton disregard for factual information by public representatives.

We note your comment that there is no right of appeal, however, we feel it is entirely appropriate and reasonable in the interests of transparency that you provide an account of the process that was followed and the reasons for your rejection relative to each point of complaint and the supporting evidence. Only in this way are we able to make an informed judgement as to whether due process was indeed followed and so determine whether a formal complaint to the Ombudsman is appropriate with regard to your handling of this particular complaint.

We look forward to your considered response.

Yours Sincerely

Colin Marsh – Vice Chair, Weymouth Neighbourhood Steering Group

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------- Original message --------

From: Jonathan Mair <REDACTED

Date: 08/04/2023 07:36 (GMT+00:00)

To: David Harris <cllrdavidharris@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>

Cc: Jane Biscombe <JaneBiscombe@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>, David Northam <cllrdavidnortham@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>

Subject: RE: Interference with Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan process.

Dear David

As the complaint has not been investigated and there has been no hearing I do not know if the figures have been made up or what justification the councillors complained about might have for what was written in the leaflet. For the reasons that I have set out I do not believe that it is for officers to get involved in adjudicating the accuracy or otherwise of political leaflets published by councillors.

Kind regards

Jonathan

Jonathan Mair

Director of Legal & Democratic (Monitoring Officer)

Senior Leadership Team

Dorset Council

From: David Northam <cllrdavidnortham@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2023 9:17 AM
To: David Harris <cllrdavidharris@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Interference with Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan process.

This is weird what is the point of a Democratic officer?

Colin Marsh has written on behalf of SG questioning the basis of the decision not to investigate.

Cheers

David

From: David Northam <cllrdavidnortham@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Sent: 07 June 2023 13:43
To: Dave Chapman < REDACTED
Cc: safcol < REDACTED >; Jane Biscombe <JaneBiscombe@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>; Michele Williams <michelewilliams@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>; David Harris <cllrdavidharris@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Subject: FW: Draft Letter to Locality ref discounting response to 3rd Engagement q7 and q8 and avoiding future 'objection'

Hi Dave,

I apologise for the length of the letter – attachment ‘Democratic Process request for advice to Locality v2’. Our first course of action was to contact the Democratic Officer at Dorset Council with a Code of Conduct complaint which was not supported. I have included the description of this in an Annex and also included as attachments the various emails. The letter also contains the analysis of the survey responses in an Annex.

We look forward to your advice on how to proceed and are happy to provide any additional information you require – or discuss this online/by phone.

Best Regards

Cllr David Northam, Chair WNP SG.

Mr Dave Chapman

Locality Support

7^th June 2023

Dear Dave,

I write to you, as Chair of the Weymouth NP Steering Group, to express concern that the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan democratic process has been adversely impacted and this has distorted the 3^rd Engagement survey results. This has been caused by the publication of misleading and inaccurate information put out by a group of four Preston Ward Councillors followed up by a ward meeting. Some of the survey results have been materially affected and the Steering Group would like the responses to question 7 and 8 results to be discounted within our Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement.

Members of the Steering Group and the Weymouth Council Leader raised these concerns with Dorset Council but Mr Jonathan Mair, the Democratic Officer, has chosen not to investigate the concerns – this correspondence is described in Annex A. I worry that the lack of resolution of these concerns will blight the progress of the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan through consultation, examination and referendum phases.

I attach the offending leaflet which contains misleading and inaccurate data relating to the Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan particularly relating to the 3 sites in the Preston Ward. In Annex B, I include the analysis I have conducted which illustrates how the response to the 3^rd Engagement survey was affected by the Leaflet and Ward Meeting.

The leaflet was issued by the 4 Preston Councillors in response to our 3^rd engagement Survey, which ran from 17^th January to 1^st February 2023. The 3rd Engagement Survey was approved by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group and endorsed by Weymouth Town Council.

Our Initial Draft Neighbourhood Plan was approved by our Steering Group at the end of April and was endorsed by the Full Council on 3^rd May – the member’s approval was 22 In Favour and 2 Against with 5 absences including another of the Preston Town Councillors. Cllr Ferrari spoke, at length, against the motion repeating the much of the statements made in the leaflet but increasing the number of homes estimate to 1000! He was the only Councillor to speak against the endorsement of the release of the Initial Draft of the WNP, other councillors supported the plan and the hard work carried out by the Steering Group.

We have just submitted our Initial Draft Plan and shortlist of sites for SEA Environmental Report expected end of July 2023. This may lead to our not proceeding with some sites because of their environmental impact. Discussions with landowners/developers are ongoing and we may not reach agreement with them on a preferred site use. We also expect to commission a Viability Assessment this may also cause some sites to be withdrawn. We hope that our Pre-Submission Draft will include Policies that encourage development particularly for affordable homes (Social Housing) and Local Employment and that within the plan we shall identify, and in some instances allocate, preferred sites for development.

I am concerned that our Neighbourhood Plan may be challenged should we proceed with including the Preston ward sites within our Pre-Submission Draft Plan which will be produced in August 2023 for Reg 14 Consultation for 6 weeks starting in Sept 2023. In addition, we are unsure how to include the distortion of the 3^rd Survey results in our Consultation Statement. We intend carrying out further public engagement on the contentious issues within our plan ahead of the Pre-Submission

I would welcome your advice on how we report this concern in the Consultation Statement and how to avoid the anticipated objection scuppering our Neighbourhood Plan or at the very least distracting our short resources.

Yours sincerely

Cllr David Northam, Chair of the WNP Steering Group.

Copy to:

Weymouth Town Clerk, Ms Jane Biscombe

Weymouth Council Leader, Cllr David Harris

Mr Colin Marsh, Vice Chair, WNP Steering Group

Attachments/Links:

Letter ref Code of Conduct Complaintrev4, 17^th February 2023
Email Response ‘Councillor Conduct Complaint’, J Mair, 23^rd March 2023
Follow Up response from C Marsh ‘Complaint responserev2’, 2^nd April 2023
Email Response ‘Re: Councillor Conduct Complaint’, J Mair, 6^th April
Letter ref ‘Interference in Democratic Process Complaint v4’, 26^th February 2023
Email Response ‘Re: Interference with Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan Process’, 31^st March 2023
Email ‘Re: Interference with Weymouth Neighbourhood Plan Process’, J Mair to Cllr D Harris, 8^th April 2023
‘3^rd Engagement Map Book and Glossary version 5’, Jan 2023.
Preston Councillors’ Leaflet of approx. 22^nd May
3rd Engagement Survey Results ‘Data_WTC_Neighbourhood Plan Survey January 2023’

Annex A: Correspondence with Dorset Council.

Formal code of conduct complaints were made by members of the Steering Group against the 4 Preston Ward Councillor’s to Dorset Council, I attach a copy of the complaint raised on behalf of the Steering Group and submitted by the Vice-Chair who is not a town councillor. This complaint was made on the basis of the misleading and inaccurate information in the leaflet showing that the Preston councillors had failed to follow the code of conduct. I also attach the response from Mr Jonathan Mair who dealt with the complaint. His response states ‘One of the principles of conduct in public life is honesty - that councillors should be truthful. There will be instances where it will be plain and obvious that this has been breached and formal action is needed. In other instances, the situation can be more nuanced, as in the case of concerns about the possible consequences of emerging planning policy. In one instance you make a point that the leaflet refers to proposals whereas what has happened is consultation. In another instance you refer to hyperbole. I believe that in this instance we are dealing with nuance rather than plain untruthfulness. The neighbouring BCP Council area is about to enter the particularly sensitive pre-election period. In Dorset we are 12 months away from that time but already I am seeing the signs of heightened political sensitivity. It is not appropriate for and I do not intend myself or colleagues in the complaints team to be drawn onto the slippery slope of beginning to be seen to arbitrate the accuracy of political statements and concerns raised by councillors.‘ I am disappointed that he chose not to investigate the substance of this complaint but instead chose to treat this as a minor political matter with questions of accuracy being a matter of nuance. His letter ends by saying our only course of appeal is to write to the ombudsman.

Mr Marsh wrote back to J Mair challenging his view that statements in the leaflet are untrue… Mr Mair replied that he viewed the leaflet as party political statement and said that he was unwilling to proceed to asking officers to investigate and adjudicate on the accuracy of statements in a party political publication. This makes me question the purpose of a democratic officer and whether the complaints about lack of honesty and truthfulness was properly conducted.

Cllr Harris subsequently emailed Mr Mair and questioned how lies could be called ‘nuance’ Mr Mair responded that ‘As the complaint has not been investigated and there has been no hearing I do not know if the figures have been made up or what justification the councillors complained about might have for what was written in the leaflet. For the reasons that I have set out I do not believe that it is for officers to get involved in adjudicating the accuracy or otherwise of political leaflets published by councillors.’ This not only says that the complaint has not been investigated but also ignores the fact that the NP is led by a Steering Group with a majority of lay members and is deliberately non-political.

I wrote expressing concern that there had been interference in the democratic process. This was dismissed by Mr Jonathan Mair on the grounds that ‘the situation can be more nuanced, as in the case of concerns about the possible consequences of emerging planning policy. That is the situation that I believe we are dealing with here, with rival interpretations of what consultations and emerging planning policy might mean. In Dorset we are a little over 12 months away from elections and already I am seeing the signs of heightened political sensitivity.’ I attach my letter of 26^th February and his full response of 31^st March.

Annex B Analysis of Impact of Leaflet and Ward Meeting on 3^rd Engagement Survey

The WNP 3^rd Public engagement Survey was run predominantly on-line using Survey Monkey it was accessed from the Weymouth Town Council website which included all the supporting papers to the survey. Results have been analysed and show a change of responses received following the issuing of the ward member’s leaflet on the 23^rd January and ward member’s public meeting on the 25^th January.

I do not know what was said at the public meeting. But after the 22^nd January it is noticeable that the tone of the responses shifts from being generally supportive to being strongly critical on a number of topics not just those identified in the leaflet. It is also particularly noticeable that most textual comments relate to sites located within the Preston Ward boundary.

The misleading and inaccurate statements in the leaflet.

The leaflet states the following (quoted text in Red):

The leaflet goes on to say:

Further the leaflet says:

‘Weymouth Town Council has produced its plan and is now going to consultation on their proposals. We think the plans are awful. Apart from the 500 homes in Preston, they are suggesting the same amount of housing in Lodmoor between the wetlands and the park. They also want to remove about 500 parking spaces from the Town, never mind the impact on businesses. This repeats the same misleading and inaccurate information as above. But in addition, says it is now going to consultation – we do not go to formal consultation until September 2023 as we are still engaging the public, as recommended in the NPPF and Locality guide. The leaflet states the plans “are awful” despite the fact that at that time no such plans existed. The third sentence says ‘they are suggesting the same amount of housing at Lodmoor ‘ – again this is misleading and grossly inaccurate – the published report accompanying the survey states potential for between 105 and 140 homes not 500. Finally, the last sentence suggests the loss of 500 car parking spaces. We have made no estimate of the number of spaces; there are 2 car park sites listed in the 11 sites being considered but the published Site Shortlisting report states that should car parks be built upon them some parking elsewhere will be needed. This is recognised by Dorset Council who are the site owners for the car parks and features in their own plans following through the extant Weymouth Town Centre Master Plan which is a Supplementary Planning Document. This fact will have been known by Cllr Ferrari who at that time was the Portfolio Holder for Economic Growth and Development across Dorset with special responsibility for Weymouth the largest urban area in Dorset Council’s boundary.

The influence on the survey.

Almost 573 people took part in the online survey. 137 completed the survey before 23^rd Jan and 436 after.

Responders were asked to indicate support by voting Yes. The raw results are shown below.

(THIS IS A REPEAT OF THE TABLES SHOWN ABOVE) Editor

On Q8 there was a clear majority in favour of the sites being considered before 23^rd Jan but after the 23^rd Jan this shifted to a clear majority being opposed.

A similar shift can be seen on Q7 with a reversal of the response pattern after the 23^rd Jan.

We do not have the resources to submit all the survey responses to a forensic examination and so feel that the responses to Q7 and Q8 are discounted. However we might anticipate this leading to an objection that we haven’t respected the responses from residents – despite this being on the basis of misleading and inaccurate information contained in a leaflet.

From: Francis Shaw < REDACTED
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2023 4:16 PM
To: David Northam <cllrdavidnortham@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Cc: Dave Chapman < REDACTED >; safcol REDACTED Jane Biscombe JaneBiscombe@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk; Michele Williams <michelewilliams@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>; David Harris <cllrdavidharris@weymouthtowncouncil.gov.uk>
Subject: RE: Draft Letter to Locality ref discounting response to 3rd Engagement q7 and q8 and avoiding future 'objection'

Hi David,

Many thanks for getting in touch with Dave. Dave and I have both discussed this, and I am responding in my capacity as programme manager.

Regarding handling the perceived distortion of the survey results in the consultation statement, the regulations do not specify how you should/ should not present a consultation statement. From a best practice perspective, it would be useful if you clearly set out the relevant consultation (in this case the survey), the responses to the consultation, and the extent to which you decided to take on board the comments and the reasons for any deviations. One thing to flag is it may be difficult to concretely demonstrate that the survey results were skewed by information produced by external parties, so I think it is important that you can be as comprehensive as possible in the consultation statement.

I do note you are planning to undertake some more engagement before the Regulation 14 consultation. This could present you with a really good opportunity to provide clarity to the community and to clear up any misunderstanding that you feel may have been caused about the sites in question and your proposals for them. You might want to consider drop in events or consultation events, inviting people along to better understand what is and isn’t being considered for the sites. This would work very well, as unlike a survey it allows you to convey more information and also offers a two-way channel of communication. You might also want to consider producing a fact sheet to provide factual information on what could or couldn’t potentially be included for the sites in question. After this, you might also want to re-survey individuals to gauge their views on the sites. I think this period in the run up to Regulation 14 would offer you a really good opportunity to be very clear and help the community understand what is and isn’t being proposed.

I appreciate that the above may not necessarily lead to a change in views, but you can express clearly your rationale for actioning or not actioning feedback in the consultation statement. However, ultimately it is the community that vote in the referendum, so it is advisable to try to clear any perceived misunderstandings up before you get into further formal stages of the process.

I hope you find this helpful.

Many thanks,

Francis

Francis Shaw

Neighbourhood Planning Programme Manager

Locality

Create Your Own Website With Webador