Campaigners claim council is acting 'unlawfully' over car park sale

Campaigners have claimed Surrey Heath Borough Council has acted "unlawfully" and "recklessly" over its decision to consider the sale of a free-to-use village car park.

Opposition campaigners allege the process behind the council's proposal to consider the sale of public assets to be a potential breach of constitutional rights. But the council has

denied these claims and insists it "has been a careful, ongoing piece of work over the last two years and not a rushed decision". It also points to its transparency around the

situation and its commitment to "transparency, accountability and ensuring public assets deliver best value for our community". As part of its strategy of making more effective use

of land and property for council taxpayers, and its commitment to maximising the potential of under-utilised land, the council announced it will consider the sale of the free-to-use car

park in Deepcut. Conservatives party members expressed their concerns with the allegedly "unlawful" processes which have surrounded how the council came to the decision to consider

the sale of the Woodend Road car park, as well as two other public assets. A decision on the sale is due to be made by councillors at an executive meeting on Tuesday, May 20. Political

campaigners Ed McGuinness and Attieh Fard raised concerns over what they claim is a "rushed" and "reckless" move. They believe the sale of the 40-space car park is

"prime for community consultation" and that the proposal goes against the three promises the Lib Dem party, which controls the council, made when they were voted in of

"transparency, accountability, and assets". Ms Fard, who has been selected as a Conservative County Council candidate for Camberley West, believes the potential sale and closure of

Woodend car park will have a "negative affect" on businesses, residents, and people who visit Deepcut for the church, school and gym. Suggesting that the alternative car park at

St Barbara's "will not work" because it will become "overcrowded" and force "disabled people, the elderly, and pregnant" women to walk up a hill to reach

the centre of the village. Mr McGuinness says the councillors' claim the car park is "underused" is a "misrepresentation" used to justify its potential sale. He

said: "The car park is constantly in use, we went Saturday (May 17) morning and it was 95 per cent full. Underused is a misrepresentation." He added the council has "abjectly

failed" to engage with the community in relation to the potential sale. He said: "We aren't trying to stop the council from doing things for the community. We are trying to

ensure that the council holds important community assets to account with our residents in mind." According to Attieh, the Property & Economic Development Working Group for the

borough council allegedly made a proposal for the marketing for the sale of three key community assets, including the Woodend Road car park. Three officers attended this working group

meeting. The council then placed these assets on the market, publishing a Facebook post on February 14, 2025 offering these assets for purchase. She claims this process was

"unconstitutional" because: "As the red book value of some of these assets were above £25k; the council's officers lacked the power to market without the executive’s

decision. The executive had not made such a decision. "A barrister I instructed, a KC, and I were both of the view that the Working Group had made a decision to market the assets, and

that the marketing of the assets was the first step towards disposal of these assets, and therefore (should have been) a function of the council which could only be done by either the

executive or its officers." On March 5, Ms Fard launched a petition titled 'Stop the fire Sale of community assets by Surrey Heath Borough Council'. The petition aims to halt

the sale of the Woodend Road car park in Deepcut, land at Holly Hedge Road, Frimley, and land to the rear of 361-365 London Road, Camberley. Ms Fard believes the decision to sell these

assets should be made once Local Government Reorganisation in Surrey is completed and a new local authority for the region is in power. According to Ms Fard the petition has achieved the

number of signatures required for the the council to debate it at a full council meeting. She said: "They have a choice on May 20, whether to defer the matter and take into account the

petition, or ignore it and make the decision that night. If they ignore the petition we have a serious issues with democracy and the council’s commitment to the people. "There is no

transparency. If they council decide to sell the land after such as private meeting, in my view they is no transparency at all levels. In my view it is a reckless decision [to consider the

sale] with all that is going on in general elections and Local Government Reorganisation, when they (should) dispose of the capital for the new local authority." Mr McGuinness added:

"If you get elected on a mandate of transparency, accountability and community, you need to show you can keep that, and this car park makes it clear they aren’t doing that. It's a

'dereliction of jury' to turn around and go against the points that they were elected. It’s cut and run. It is the local government equivalent of lighting a fire at someone's

door bell and running away." "WE HAVE ACTED TRANSPARENTLY" Councillor Kel Finan-Cooke, Surrey Heath Property & Economic Development Portfolio Holder, told SurreyLive:

"The potential sale of Woodend Road car park is part of our clear manifesto commitment to make council property work, including selling underused assets to fund vital local services.

"This car park is currently underused, especially with new parking spaces added along Deepcut Bridge Road, and is forecast to be fully surplus to requirements when a much larger, free

public car park opens soon next to St. Barbara’s Church. Residents, visitors and business users will have access to appropriate free car parking throughout the transition and into the

future. "No decision has been made. The Property & Economic Development Working Group is a cross-party body, including all political group leaders, that explores options, it does

not make decisions. Any formal proposal would go through the proper governance process via Executive or Full Council, as required by the Constitution. "Any suggestions that this process

has been unlawful, unconstitutional, or reckless is disputed by the council’s Monitoring Officer. This has been a careful, ongoing piece of work over the last two years and not a rushed

decision. "We have acted transparently, issuing a media statement and sharing updates across our social media channels and website to inform residents and local businesses once

proposals were available. We remain committed to transparency, accountability, and ensuring public assets deliver best value for our community."