A significant change is on the way for local government! 

And thanks to Surry County Council, the Silly Season has been chosen to consult residents when many are away on holiday, why not Christmas, we ask?

An Online Event may help residents have their say on local government reorganisation.

However, we at the Waverley Web believe that a vast number of residents will not have access to the necessary technology to participate. When will the “old-fashioned” public meetings be held?

At the Executive meeting this week, Leader Paul Follows announced there would be four local public meetings.

• Haslemere on July 14 – Farnham on the 16th, Godalming on the 22nd, and Cranleigh on the 29th. Venues to be arranged.

Guildford and Waverley Borough Councils are inviting residents to join them for an “Online Engagement Session” on Thursday, July 3, to learn about the most significant change to Surrey Councils in over 50 years.

The government has launched a public consultation on proposals to replace current councils with up to three bigger councils in the county. At the online session, lead councillors and officers from Waverley and Guildford Councils will:

• Explain what Local Government Reorganisation is

• Outline the options being considered, and

• Show residents how to get involved.

There will also be an opportunity for local people to ask questions about what the changes could mean for them, their family and our community.

Cllr Julia McShane, Guildford’s Leader, said: “This consultation is the only opportunity local people will have to give their views to the government, and shape how future decisions are made, services delivered, and communities represented in Surrey.

“We want local people to have access to all the information they need to take part in this once-in-a-generation change, and give the Government an informed view. This online session is the first in a series of opportunities our community will have to engage with us, and I encourage everyone to get involved and have their say.”

The government is consulting on two proposals:

• Surrey County Council leads the first and is for two unitary authorities – East and West Surrey

• The second is for three unitary authorities – North, East and West Surrey – and is supported by nine of the county’s district and borough councils, including Waverley and Guildford.

Cllr Paul Follows, Waverley’s Leader, said:

“We strongly believe a move to three unitary authorities is the right approach for our residents. This model would keep local government local. Decisions would be made by people who understand our area, and councils would be connected to their communities.

“A three-unitary approach would deliver the services our residents need, support our local business community and future growth, and make sure there is strong local leadership and accountability.”

Registering for the Online Engagement Session

The Online Engagement Session will be held on Thursday, July 3, from 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

You can register now for this event, which will be held on Microsoft Teams.

Residents can also participate in the Government consultation, which is open until Tuesday, August 5.

There’s a link to the Surrey LGR Hub, which outlines information on Local Government Reorganisation and the two proposals.

A Ewhurst patient claims he has been refused a blood test for prostate cancer.

While others, including both The King & Sir Chris Hoy, are urging men to seek regular testing.

We are protecting the name of the individual and the specific Health Centre where the request was made for the sake of fairness and confidentiality.

The Legal functions of both councils will merge following a major decision by ‘Your Waverley’s  Extraordinary Council Meeting. 

However, a handful of Tories, led by their group leader, Cllr  Jane Austin, typically opposed the plan.

The Tories have been opposed to any collaboration between authorities from the outset. But favour Surrey being split into two or a single Unitary authority. A move which residents’ surveys have opposed

Cllr Austin claimed a predicted 4% annual savings for both authorities was too small, the risks were high, the cost of transferring staff was too high, and the change was rushed for authorities on the cusp of local government reorganisation. She wanted any decision deferred until the Autumn, during which time the future of local authorities would be more certain. “Then we can make a more informed decision.”

Echoing her words, Cllr Michael Goodridge argued that the”rushed timeframe of July 1 – just ten days away – for implementation.  Talks with the unions and staff would be rushed.  Claiming:

“Will it be a rushed consultation or  a whitewash?”

However, their concerns were dismissed by others, saying the move was not just about monetary savings.  It would put both authorities, and in particular their staff, in a much better position in the future with LGR. The new team would be the only authority combining legal and information services for two local authorities.

 The G & W Legal and Information Team would be resilient enough to handle the huge workload before LGR due to a flood of land and asset transfers required by the parish and town councils in both Waverley & Guildford.

Leader Paul Follows said the savings would not be restricted to just 4% going forward; it could be considerably more. It was also likely that Waverley & Guildford would still be going for another two years.

Cllr Victoria Keihl said, “Just this week, on one transaction alone, the authorities had saved £5,000.

She stressed the consultation with staff and unions was already well progressed.

Cash-strapped councils needed every penny they could muster.

Legal Services and Information Governance are both back-office functions that provide essential support to enable the exercise of functions and delivery of services across the authorities.

The Legal Services and Information Governance teams of both authorities are key services that support the delivery of all the authorities’ objectives, ensuring they meet all statutory and legal requirements.

Both authorities currently operate in-house services which report to the Assistant Director for Legal Services and Information Governance.

External legal support is obtained when it is identified as necessary, either due to complexity or capacity constraints. The budget for the internal staff costs, with oncosts, is £1,050,669 at Waverley Borough Council and £1,319,620 at Guildford Borough Council. External spend on legal services for the financial year 24/25 at Waverley Borough Council is £618,872, and at Guildford Borough Council is £579,026.

Both authorities currently have contracts in place for case management systems and online resources. Having a single contract in place rather than two contracts will enable the authorities to attract better rates, creating savings.

  Guildford’s Legal Services and Information Governance team has a total of 22 FTE. (Full-time equivalents.)

The motion to join forces was approved by a vote of 25 to 7, with one abstention. The transfer takes place on 1 July 2025.

G & W have been sharing legal expertise for some considerable time.

 The total cost, excluding on-costs, is £1,009,739, with an additional £135,893 in funding from the Housing Revenue Account for services provided beyond business as usual.

The Waverley Legal Services and Information Governance team has already been increased over the financial year 24/25 following a restructuring.

The team provides advice and support, and also deals with contract disputes.  The property team advises on all matters relating to land assets, including conveyancing, leases, easements, licences, and rights to buy. They also advise on issues about land ownership by local authorities, such as appropriation and consents, and resolve disputes.

Litigation and licensing – prosecutions relating to non-compliance for planning and regulatory services, and dealing with challenges to the authorities’ decision-making.

They provide advice and guidance throughout the investigative process. Advising members on licensing matters and attending hearings. 

Planning – provide advice to officers and the committee. Negotiate and draft S106 agreements and unilateral undertakings. They deal with planning appeals and also review applications. 

For the second time, in under a year the Stovolds Hill Gipsy Inquiry has been Adjourned due to illness striking down the Inspector.

Is the Waverley Web surprised? No way! We felt ill just listening to THE most confusing hearing we have ever had the misfortune to witness!

Two separate gipsy families who have lived on a site they own off Dunsfold  Road, which is in the parish of Bramly a village five miles down the A281. Whose residents have probably never heard of the site adjacent to Dunsfold airfield.

Two families, Docherty, including their disabled members,  have lived there for more than four years, while councils and other officials have battled to kick them out.

The fight began with ‘Your Waverleys’ refusal, which was then appealed and challenged in the High Court, where a judge ruled they could stay.

Why? We hear you cry? Because she found there was nowhere else for them to go, pending the results of yet more planning appeals.

Last October, halfway through the first day of the Inquiry, Inspector Richard Clegg fell ill. The hearing in the council’s Chamber boasted two barristers acting for the two separate gipsy families and one for Waverley Council. Earning circa £400 an hour each plus VAT.  Kerching!

There was also a string of expert witnesses and members of the public.

ADJOURNED TO A FUTURE DATE.

So lots of dosh – including that of us, the ratepayer, sliding down the drain

Fast forward to June 3rd, the Inquiry re-convened for the second time. Same Inspectors, same families, same legal eagles, and teams of “experts.”

Four days into – one of the most confusing PI’s the WW has ever witnessed – during which even the Barristers were fighting among themselves.  Waverley s Barrister David Lintott testily claiming that if the gipsy Barrister  Alan Masters was allowed to cross-examine a Waverley Council witness –

“Then this public inquiry will never be finished”

By this time, it was already running two and a half days behind schedule. ‘

The inspector then, with a look of despair etched into his face, listened to this: in the link below.

The Dunsfold Toad Patrol is on the Gipsy’s case at a postponed public inquiry

That’s when the Waverley Web reached for our favourite Silent Pool Gin, and the inspector gave up the ghost of Gipsies & Travellers’ Past.

We respectfully offer a word of advice to the Government’s Inspectorate.

1. Find an Inspector who is fit enough to stay the course with nerves of steel and the patience of Job and his  brother Job’s Comforter.
2. Ensure that two different appellant appeals are  dealt with separately
3. Ensure the unfortunate soul that has to hear the case is given all the proper paperwork before the appeal begins.
4. And determine if the time limit during which an appeal should be heard has lapsed.

The Dunsfold Toad Patrol is on the Gipsy’s case at a postponed public inquiry

See Here; Confusion – Cock-up and controversy on day one of Stovolds Hill Gipsy Inquiry

Day Three of the Dunsfold Gipsy Inquiry

Could a village Toad Patrol scupper Gipsy families’ bid to stay on a site near Lydia Park, Stovolds Hill?

And was the arrival of the Great Crested Newt and its fellow Toads just too much for Government Inspector Richard Clegg? Because having adjourned the Inquiry last October after just one day, it has been adjourned again! Having lasted a little longer! 

 At his last appearance four days ago, Inspector Clegg heard the dramatic revelation that an enormous number of amphibians, including Triturus cristatus, regularly roam the streets of Dunsfold. 

The drama was too much for our seasoned bloggers here at the WW, and the same may have been true for poor Cleggy. There is only so much a man or our bloggers can take!  

Click on the link below to hear just a snippet of Cllr Waterson’s Toad Patrol Report from the Dunsfold Amphibian Rescue Team. But have a cup of tea and a lie down first.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f71l7bq1ub4tdmkvfl245/Toad_Patrol.mp4?rlkey=35hfwkdunu3hzlewww9j9ud2m&dl=0

The Toad Patrol’s theme tune, Standing Together

But great crested news and frogs are not the only ones Dunsfold that are doing the rounds according to the Dunsfold Amphibian Rescue Group’s Toad Patrol. In fact the marine life that inhibit Dunsfold outweigh the gipsies 100 to 1.

Cllr Nigel Waterson told the Inspector that according to the Toad Patrols calculations there are…

“thousands of them.” 

Yes, folks thousands and that is good enough reason to ensure that two miles down the Dunsfold Road at Stovolds Hill in the Parish of Bramley. No more gipsy caravans must be allowed. Despite Waverley Planners giving consent for dozens of them in the past year or so.

Did planning officers go out in all weathers, which according to Cllr Waterson the Toad Patrol does regularly, regardless of the weather conditions to determine if  Dunsfold’s amphibian wildlife is under threat.

Will they do the same at  Hill Tops, New Acres, Lydia Park or Yellowstone Park  the Waverley Web wonders?

To be fair, others have put forward numerous other reasons for refusing the appeals.

The locals maintain if the Inspector agrees the Docherty families  can stay then the Amphibians of Dunsfold are seriously under threat.

Or perhaps it means the amphibians of Stovolds Hill are under threat.  But until the Inquiry reconvenes we will never know. And the Docherty families will have lived there longer than four years!

On and on it goes.

Most of the third morning of the Public inquiry into gipsy sites in Stovolds Hill was spent with barristers scrapping amongst themselves.

The morning began badly with a vital witness stuck on the M25. He turned up many hours later.

Waverley’s barrister claimed that the appellant’s barrister, Alan Master, was not permitted under Inquiry rules to ask questions of Waverley’s expert witness regarding specific landscaping evidence. Evidence given a day earlier by Mr  Ian Dudley,  covering both of the Docherty’s appeal sites.

Counsel for Waverley’s David Lintott testily claimed that if Mr Masters were allowed to ask specific questions,

“Then this public inquiry will never be finished”

That Inquiry is already well behind schedule and the parties involved have set aside 27th of June to continue.

Well, that’s alright. Because at more than £400 per hour plus VAT – simples. Everyone in he room is laughing all the way to the bank. Some of which invoices will no doubt be paid by us, Waverley taxpayers.

However,  Mr Woods, the Appellants’ Landscaping expert, commented.

 ” To be fair, we asked the government Inspectorate to deal with the two individual family appeals separately, but it refused, which would have made a huge difference to this ( the inquiry). He said that decision had made the proceeding very difficult for everyone, including the Inspector.

Bang on target, Mr Woods.  Here at the WW, we fear for the sanity of poor  Mr Clegg, who has hidden his growing frustration to the best of his ability throughout the hearing. 

After insisting on being heard, the Inspector allowed Mr Masters to examine the evidence provided earlier by Waverley’s witness. A witness, whom he claimed had omitted to mention the UCOG fracking site, and the Industrial Units at a nearby farm. Both have been given planning consent since Docherty’s planning was refused.

Mr Woods said the view from Dunsfold Road of the appeal site would be “minimal” – views into the site would only be in the winter months, and then, very limited.

He said it was difficult to distinguish the appeal sites from the rest of the gipsy sites in Lydia Park and Stovolds Hill, saying that the appeal sites, if allowed, would cause no significant harm.

He told Inspector Richard Clegg that eyes were drawn to the much larger intensity of development in Stovolds Hill and Lydia Park, some of which is authorised. But development there had nothing to do with the Dochertys. The fundamental question was?  Would  two caravans cause more harm?

I say they will not.

He argued, though, that the appeal sites were in a natural landscape,  but they were not in a valued landscape. To the west of the site may be included, but not the land on Lydia Park to the North.  Adding,

“Neither is it a candidate for the new  National Landscape Designation. It has been excluded.”

There was much discussion about other significant developments in the area of Stovolds Hill. 

Including The Brewery at Thatched House Farm, the approved UK Oil & Gas Fracking Site at Loxley Farm, the large commercial industrial units adjacent to the site at Thatched House Farm, and the proposed development of 1,800 consented homes at Dunsfold Park – Waverley’s largest brownfield site. Earmarked for 2,300 homes and accompanying infrastructure.

However, there was no mention of the large Biodivestor in Stovolds Hill!

The Inspector said he would travel around ‘the whole area’ of Stovolds Hill, including to the entrance gates of Dunsfold Park and along the Dunsfold Road to view the “fracking site.

The Inquiry continues.

Former Surrey County Councillors  Victoria and Alan Young want to build 14 homes after demolishing the bungalow, Tree Tops, in Mapledrakes Road, Ewhurst.

A scheme described by councillors as “horrific” and “mind-boggling”, which was neither “sympathetic nor sustainable “for the village, was unanimously rejected.

Waverley Planners recommended refusal for a host of planning reasons. An officer described the background to the latest bid by the owners to build on a site near an Ancient Woodland, designated as a site of Nature Conservation and Importance for Wildlife. On this site, trees had previously been illegally felled, and the site’s ecology had been damaged.  There were five pages summarising objections from villagers, including the parish council.

Speakers, including a representative from Ewhurst and Ellens Green Parish Councils, stated that the strength of local opposition was enormous and that the latest plan offered no solutions to address the significant local concerns.

After councillors heard that 146 objection letters had been received, Chief Planning Officer Clare Upton Brown was asked why the plan had been brought to the committee for consideration.  She said rules permitted this, as there had been 20 letters of support.

Former County Councillors – the Young Duo turn developers?

Tory Councillors – The Young duo – bang in another planning application.

Over the past five years, hundreds of objections have been registered, spanning a long history of planning applications and dismissed appeals. 

Schemes for 20 homes – then 18 homes were either refused by Waverley or by a Government inspector at appeal.

Speakers included the borough councillor for Ewhurst, Michael Higgins,  who said, “Now you have another application this time for 14 homes before you.” However, the situation remains the same, both then and now. It is outside the settlement on a sensitive site with nothing to commend it.

Farnham Cllr Carole Cochburn described the scheme as “horrific” and, while 146 objectors are not always right in this instance, she could see absolutely nothing to disagree with their sentiments, saying there was nothing to commend it.

To mow down a bungalow and attempt to build in a beautiful landscape goes against the grain.  She said areas around Sayers Craft on sites such as this had to be protected and remain special. Not just shove up something urban in a beautiful place, I will not hesitate to refuse this.”

Reasons for refusal

For refusal.

A Government inspector heard that Waverley Council has failed in its statutory duty to provide an up-to-date assessment of the borough’s future Gipsy and Traveller needs. 

Vital evidence that Inspector Mr. Richard  Clegg needs to determine whether a group of gipsies can remain on land they own and have inhabited for years to the north of Lydia Park in the Parish of Bramley.

An eight day public inquiry into a Dunsfold Gypsy site has started

Barristers acting on behalf of the Doherty families repeatedly called for evidence of a costly and incomplete survey of need carried out by contractors. They claimed that relying on data from 2017 could not be considered robust data on which the Inspector needs to make crucial decisions affecting the lives of those affected by the outcome of appeals.

The public inquiry began on Tuesday and will continue until June 13, with a reconvening scheduled for November 12.

On numerous occasions through the inquiry one of the Docherty family barristers Mr Masters has accused Waverley Council of deliberately delaying the G&T Assessment, saying it was a ” tactic”  used by the authority but this was rebutted by the Counci’s advocate saying: “it merely wanted to kill two birds with one stone and include all the up-to-date information of need in its new Local Plan. It is believed that the three sites are. Hill Tops, New Acres and Lydia `park have generated a huge future need, as young children are now adults with families.  The council commissioned the costly survey of need and then halted it halfway.

 Bramley Cllr Francesca Stern took the stand once more to provide a diatribe of statistics which she claimed proved that the concentration of gipsies and others unknown had grown exponentially. She said the village of Bramley and Waverley now had one of the largest concentrations in the country. She alleged that not everyone who lived there was a gipsy or traveller, and after inspecting the electoral roll, one name that appeared was not a gipsy name.

Confusion – Cock-up and controversy on day one of Stovolds Hill Gipsy Inquiry

Chairman of Hascombe Parish Council, Cllr Sarah Sullivan, took the stand to convey the concern that the huge influx of gipsies was causing the residents of Hascombe and the nearby villages of Dunsfold and Alfold. 

She claimed the natural environment in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the views from footpaths on Hascombe Hill (overlooking the sites) were being damaged.  Her residents wanted to live in “dark skies,” she said:

“The lighting from the site at night is similar to a large city. Most of the time, it is lit up like a Christmas tree. We can no longer see the stars or the planets.”

She claimed there was a surge of “internationals” occupying unauthorised development at Lydia Park, an intended development by people with complete disregard for the law.

She described Lydia Park as it once was: a long-established site where formerly local people had a good relationship with its occupants.

Asked if she had evidence or knew of complaints made by her parish council to Waverley about the alleged unauthorised development at Lydia Park and the appeal site, Mrs O’Sullivan either couldn’t or wouldn’t answer.

Even the Inspector looked frustrated and tried to intervene, but with little success.

Barrister for the appellants Alan Masters asked Cllr Sullivan if she was aware of other authorised development adjacent to the appeal site: eg, UK Oil & Gas permission to drill for gas at Loxley Farm, the consented housing development at Dunsfold Airfield, and the buildings at Thatched House Farm, and other commercial developments recently granted nearby.

Had her council objected to the nearby UK Oil & Gas Exploration site at High Loxley site or the extensive warehouse commercial development? She confirmed that she had objected to UKOG. Due to the damage it would cause to the Surrey Hills.

She heard that Waverley Planners or the High Court had approved all this recent development.

Cllr Sullivan did not respond to a Barrister’s suggestion that the vast expansion of Lydia Park – and the extension of the appeal site proved there was a huge local need for both gipsy and traveller accommodation and housing,

The Inquiry continues. 

This has been an incredibly difficult Inquiry to follow on the webcast because a considerable amount of the time has been spent on exchanges between the parties and witnesses  have been “noises off.” Participants have consistently failed to use their microphones.

Our Spider wanted to crawl under Waverley’s Council Chamber carpet in the hope that someone would tread on it within moments of Inspector Richard Clegg reconvening a Public Inquiry postponed last November due to his ill health. No such luck!

We could Bet Fred that Mr Clegg was in dire need of a cup of tea and a lie down following what can only be described as a ‘Nightmare on Waverley Street.’ Or, in this case, the gipsy sites in Stovolds’ Hill. Let’s hope he has the stamina to endure days like this in June and then another long session in November.

Adjourned Gipsy Inquiry re- convenes today.

Well, folks – the nightmare began when it became patently obvious that a vital piece of evidence was missing. Had it slipped down the back of a chair, or was it sitting on the planning officer’s desktop? No way, it turned out that the Contractor given the task of providing an up-to-date assessment of Gipsy and Traveller needs in the borough had been halted halfway through the job. Why? Because it was claimed that the council was short of funds, and it wanted to concentrate on getting its new Local Plan off the drawing board.

Was that the sound of the Cllr and Portfolio Holder for the Local Plan, Liz Townsend, screaming “untrue” along the corridor? 

One barrister wanted the planning officer, or councillor, responsible for halting the vital current needs assessment, to be hauled before the Inspector to answer for their actions. Some hope of that! Because the blame may lie with Head Honcho – Ups and Downs?

Continuing this inquiry without a proper current assessment of need, we might as well not go ahead with this Inquiry, said one of the lawyers.   At this point, there was a glint in the Inspector’s eye for the first time, or perhaps it was a tear? Difficult to tell while watching a Webcast.  Particularly when you can only hear half the argument, as some speakers didn’t turn their microphones on!

For the uninitiated – every council in the country has to have an up-to-date Gipsy and Traveller Site Assessment. However, Waverley’s legal eagle confirmed they did the up-to-date assessment in 2017!  Holy Moly, nearly a decade ago!  As `Nessa would say “, What’s occurring?” Quite a lot, according to how the locals described the massive influx of ‘other people’ living in ‘tinnies’ on sites called ‘Yellowstone Park’ and ‘Willow Brook.’ Sites owned by gipsies, requested and consented by ‘Your Waverley’  but who were they being occupied by? 

Here lies the Big Question – according to barristers acting for the Doherty family, who want to stay on a site they have occupied for years, nobody knows.

Bramley Parish Councillor Councillor Stern claimed the units at nearby Lydia Park are not gipsies as the pitches are being occupied by “people including som from – “The North of England”  Are there no gipsies living north of Watford? She claimed she could tell who was advertising the units, as their Facebook pages. reveal they have ” lots of friends.” Though obviously not in many in Bramley, judging by her evidence! Much of which we are unable to report.

It was not the first time we had heard Cllr Stern make defamatory remarks in Waverley’s hallowed halls. She once accused the residents of Bramley’s Clock House Lane of being threatened by a developer to support his planning application, which they had unanimously endorsed. They strongly refuted this and registered a complaint, to which they received no response.

Docherty’s Barristers (there were two) respectfully suggested to the Inspector that Waverley’s failure to take enforcement action against unauthorised development or breaches of planning conditions by court injunction, etc., on an adjacent site had nothing to do with his client’s case for staying put.  Waverley’s failures to act elsewhere on Stovolds Hill should not impact on others who wanted, due to need,  to occupy their land. To do so was...

“Both unfair and cruel.“

The Inspector was respectfully asked to consider that Waverley’s failure to take proper enforcement action, with court injuctions against unauthorised development or breach of planning conditions – which rules sites could only be occupied by gipsies/travellers had nothing to do with their client’s appeal to remain on the site they owned albeit near other gipsy sites.

There were hours of debate about “known knowns,” “known unknowns,” and “unknown unknowns,” popularised by former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. 

It was generally agreed that there were definitely lots of “unknowns’ about the gipsy and traveller need for sites and pitches in Waverley.

Hopefully, all will become clear in the coming days; however, we won’t be holding our breath. If we can stomach more of it, we will let you know.

Here are the Appellants for a string of appeals for the stationing of caravans and mobile homes on a controversial site at Stovolds Hill, Dunsfold, in the parish of Bramley. 

The previous inquiry was adjourned on the first day of the proceedings in November 2024 due to the Inspector’s ill health. There is no information on which Inspector will lead the appeal. So it may start from scratch!

Interesting – very interesting! The inquiry will take place from June 3rd to 13th and then reconvene from November 12th to 22nd. Is the Inspectorate short of Inspectors, or are they all bowing out!?! 

The controversy over the occupation by homeless people, rather than gipsies, occupying hundreds of “tinnies” near the gipsy site has grown faster than ragwort on Stovolds Hill.  The locals are fuming at escalation of anti social incidents – now even the gipsies are making plans to leave the official sites—some who have lived there over 50 years.

One gipsy who contacted the Waverley Web said she can no longer put her children on the school bus, due to the behaviour of other children.

Mr T Doherty, Appellant A, Mr S Doherty, Appellant B, Mrs A Doherty, Joint appellant C, Mr Mark Doherty, Joint appellant C, Mr Matthew Doherty, Appellant D.

Here is the site notification from the Inspectorate.

The first person on the stand will be Councillor Chris Britton, who will speak on behalf of Alfold Parish Council and most objectors during both the morning and afternoon sessions. Should he declare an interest?

He lives on Stovolds Hill, only a few hundred yards from the established Gipsy sites, and his house is currently on the market.  No axe to grind there then! Mr Britton was also one of the leading protagonists in the STOP Dunsfold campaign called POW – Protect our Waverley. A group set up to halt development on the largest brownfield site in the borough, at Dunsfold airfield.

Anyone who would like to participate in the resumed inquiry is invited to attend tomorrow, June 3, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. to talk about any timetabling questions.

After that day, the inquiry may resume on occasion at the earlier time of 9:30 am, and afternoon sessions are expected to commence between 1:30 pm and 2 pm. Precise times will be announced at the inquiry.

An eight day public inquiry into a Dunsfold Gypsy site has started

Tourist accommodation is now available at one of Cranleigh’s most beautiful spots.

Though according to the parish council – “A resident has been in occupation for a significant period of time,” so you may find t difficult to get a tourist slot!

Despite being built without planning consent, Waverley Planners have legalised Paddock Lode on the Vachery Estate at Vachery Farm in Horsham Road, Cranleigh. A 1,000- acre estate which has already hived off land to provide the Longhurst Park Estate off Horsham Road.The application site is located within the 1000-acre Vachery Farm estate, approximately 290m to the south of Vachery House the home of Mr & Mrs Nick Cook. 

Vachery, The Officers’ Report.

Despite concerns expressed by Cranleigh Parish Council, Waverley’s planning officers believed that diversifying agricultural buildings that encourage tourism into the area was to be welcomed.

Retrospective application has now been granted for the retention of an existing oak framed building and ancillary boiler/utility shed for tourist accommodation,

Retrospective application for the retention of an existing oak framed building and ancillary boiler/utility shed for tourist accommodation,

Waverley Borough Council Joint Planning Committee granted permission to the planning application for 149 dwellings on tCranleighs  Crest Nicholson Horsham Road site featured below in July 2015. 

One of our followers was thrilled to witness another layer being installed by this massive crane, which she believed was for a new multi-storey car park at the Royal Surrey Hospital in Guildford.

They are getting on with what appears to be a multi-storey car park on the land adjacent to the incineration tower  . Hopefully, it will ease the parking, as I believe (although not certain) that this will be the staff car park.
They were “craning in” another layer on top as I passed by today!! 
They have also put a pedestrian crossing from that side into the back entrance. 

Sorry, Christine – you can live in hopes that parking may become easier. Please take a look below for a glimpse of what the building will look like.

So, will parking there become even more of a premium?

Construction has begun on a new centre, which is expected to accommodate up to 7,000 additional patients annually.

In an update, the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust announced that the first of the 176 constructible modules that will make up the new Cancer and Surgical Innovation Centre (CASIC) has arrived on site.

It expects additional modules to arrive over the next few weeks, where construction workers alongside a 450-tonne crane will move and install them to create the new three-storey surgical facility.

Already the fourth largest cancer centre in the country, RSCH is set to grow even larger to help support the “increasing demand” for cancer surgeries in Surrey and the South East.

The new Cancer and Surgical Innovation Centre (CASIC) is to be constructed using pre-built modular units, which will be partly built in Hull before being transported to the Guildford hospital site.

It states that, through May and June, eight pre-built modules of the pre-fabricated structure will arrive at the site each day.

Once construction is finished next year, the Royal Surrey’s CASIC will boast six “cutting-edge” operating theatres, a recovery area, a short-stay ward and a post-anaesthetic care unit across a three-storey building.

The new centre will replace the Royal Surrey’s current surgical short stay unit, which has previously been described as “ageing” by the Trust.

In announcing the update on the centre, a spokesperson for the NHS Trust said:

“The first of the 176 modules that will make up the new Cancer and Surgical Innovation Centre (CASIC) at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust. has landed.”

But not if the locals have anything to do with it.

They are putting up robust, detailed reasons why there should be NO MORE development in Alfold as the wolves are at its door again.

Here’s what the developer wants to build on Bridian Farm, off Loxwood Road, Alfold.

The developer intends to Carry On Regardless in Alfold.

And here’s why the locals don’t want it. An avalanche of objections to another 70 homes are pouring into Waverley Planners.

Here’s what one local said:

As an Alfold resident, I am enormously concerned about a number of factors:

Traffic – the village has an appalling bus service. It is impossible to work in Guildford or Horsham without driving. The nearest railway station is 25 minutes away.

There have been three fatalities on local roads in recent years. Pushing even more homes into an area with such appalling transportation infrastructure will only exacerbate the problem. It will also increase traffic in already congested Bramley/Shalford, so it will have a knock-on effect on a wider area.

Water – Alfold is low lying and on clay. There have been several serious problems highlighted in the national media, including Jeremy Hunt’s concerns about gardens flooding with sewage when it rains. This once tiny village can cope with more homes.

Amenities: Alfold has only a part-time post office and a relatively new cafe/deli. It has no doctors or dentists, no schools, no supermarkets, no takeaway restaurants, no mobile phone signal, and an overloaded broadband network. Adding more homes with no additional real facilities is total madness.

As we border West Sussex, many of the children now travel to school there, and also have to use the doctor’s surgery in Loxwood. I wonder if the fact that Waverley doesn’t have to meet the bill for these facilities is one of the reasons Alfold is so appealing for you to permit development? You receive the payment from the developers and the council tax from residents, but then don’t actually have to provide the services while they live here?

Rural life and dark skies: Many people moved to Alfold because of its small community and quiet lifestyle. The village has doubled in size in only a few years.

We are not being Nimbies. We have hundreds of new homes that have arrived in the last 5 years. Our local development plan, supported by the whole village, made it clear we do not welcome any more. These constant developments on our beautiful green fields are changing the nature and character of the village beyond measure. The place name

Alfold means Ân old fold, which was a clearing in the Wealden forest before it was cleared for cattle grazing. Cattle still graze in the fields where this development is proposed. Please leave these fields to the animals and reject this development.

There are so many other suitable brownfield sites for additional housing elsewhere in Waverley including the massive Dunsfold Aerodrome less than a kilometre away.

And here’s an even a more comprehensive and detailed objection. Click on this link below and see for yourself what the village dubbed by Waverley Councillors as ” Poor Old Alfold” has been forced to endure. Makes fascinating reading from an objector who goes the extra mile- and some.

Wordsworth document 9277246

The Waverley Web understand that the council’s planning officers will make the decision and not the Planning Committee!

The two local authorities involved in the controversial Farnham retail development on East Street are collaborating in an attempt to give it the kiss of life. 

Surrey County Council and Your Waverley, both of whom are in their final stages due to local Government Reorganisation. A change that will see both abolished is to meet and devise a business plan.

They aim to develop a plan that addresses the unpopularity of the retail units, many of which have been difficult, if not impossible, to lease. Several have been offered free for the first year, despite being advertised nationwide.

When Crest Nicholson unveiled its ambitious scheme to breathe new life into a tired corner of Farnham’s East Street at the turn of the millennium, it promised much: Modern retail outlets, a leisure hub, restaurants, a cinema and residents’ apartments. All are intended to transform it into a vibrant part of the town.

Fast forward in time – what does Farnham have? What many of its objectors predicted. Delays, planning rows, numerous changes and disappointments, as well as a financial headache for Surrey’s pension fund and Waverley’s depleted coffers. The loss of anchor tenants – recently, Coppa Club has put the final nail in the coffin. Numerous cash injections from the county bean counters have only succeeded in stemming the financial disaster, which has hit the beleaguered developer.

Tumbleweed blows around Farnham’s Brightwells Yard

In his recent newsletter, our MP, Sir Jeremy, took yet another side swipe at the administration of Waverley Borough Council. It is now a regular occurrence.

Having recently offered himself up as Patron of the Rowley’s Day Centre in Cranleigh, he has lambasted the borough council for reducing funding for the community centre for older people, even though  Waverley has funded two organisations that operate from the centre. Users that underpin its viability.

But what he didn’t tell them, probably because he doesn’t even know. Is that under the Conservative Administration, the older people’s centre was brought to its knees? Following this, it snatched back the valuable 80+ year lease held by Trustees of a publicly funded building, halved Rowley’s funding and rid itself of AGE UK Waverley. 

Rowleys was built with money raised by the residents of Cranleigh. Thanks to the Conservative Administration and its former Head Honcho, Mary Orton, Cranleigh’s building is now owned by – yes, you guess WBC and possibly soon by a Unitary Authority somewhere out there in the boondocks. 

The council was then obligated to fund the upkeep of the building. Since doing so, Waverley’s new administration has spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds on its refurbishment and repairs.

Last year,  the vast sum of £165,000 was spent on the roof and other repairs.

So, may we here at the Waverley Web respectfully suggest that before you rant in your newsletter, you give the council that you seem to be unable to work with, let alone support, a ring to acquaint yourself with the facts, not the fiction you spout.

Peddling porkies has become a daily occurrence for Sir Jed since losing his seat as a bean counter in Government. Now his daily ritual is to denigrate and belittle the borough council, whose residents he represents. What chance of world peace when even grassroots political opponents cannot work together?

Will the King of Buy to Let ever get over the fact that Waverley is now run by someone other than the Conservatives?

Here’s what he said:

As for closing, like so many charitable organisations, it will be down to Rowley’s supporters and its dedicated staff and volunteers to keep it from closing down.  As they have succeeded in doing for many years. Because, as we have experienced, Governments and now local authorities come and they go. Waverley Council’s days as a stand alone authority are now numbered.

The big mistake, a colossal mistake, Rowley’s Trustees made was ever to relinquish ownership of its cherished building and hand it to Waverley’s Conservative Administration.

In whose hands will Rowleys and all the other Waverley buildings and assets ultimately end up? That is the question.

If you have never listened to a Waverley Borough Council debate before, you must listen to this.

The brutal timetable dictated by Surrey County Council’s race to be among the first to reorganise local Government could mean that Waverley and other local authorities are forced to manage the debt of other profligate and reckless councils. Surrey County Council has opted to split the county into two, but individual councillors were not given a vote!

Will Surrey County Council get what it wants?

Local Government certainly doesn’t look like it will be local any more.

One councillor said the government is imposing this decision on Waverley, a well-run and debt-free council.

Most believe this will weaken democracy, increase council tax, reduce services, and reduce accountability. As for future planning functions and the future of parish and town councils,  the Jury is out.

The debt issue in Surrey has overshadowed the whole process though the Government has  recently recognised that Woking’s debt must be managed somehow.

Everyone, include Surrey County Council, believe  writing off Woking’s £2.1b debt, is the only viable option going forward for LGR to work. (A report says the council has a core spending power of £16.9m a year but servicing its £2.1bn debt was costing £1.3m a week in interest alone.)

Cllr Peter Martin said : ” three or not to three – that is the question.” and he opted for two.

Cllr Carole Cockburn said she had never been a supporter of unitary authorities. But claimed

“what we say won’t make a jot of difference what I think what you think or what anyone else thinks it’s what the The Government decides. We could sit here until midnight won’t make a jot of difference. Secretary of State Jim McMahon  will make. and it will be about savings. Cetainly not for our sakes. Towns and parish councils must be treasured. They are the experts in the field. That is the vital bit.I am going to vote for two – but I don’t think it will make any difference.”

Cllr Maxine Gale. said residents are angry they haven’t been asked to give their two pennorth.

Cllr Kevin Deanus said Both Surrey and Waverley agreed that   Woking’s debt is unsustainable. ~he wants two unitary authorities East and West – where they will match the Police and Health Authority areas.

t

Waverley Councillors voted by majority to seek a Three Unitary Option.

RIP Waverley Borough Council.

Today marks 80 years since VE (Victory in Europe) Day, when the Second World War ended in Europe.

This special anniversary is an important opportunity for communities to come together to honour the bravery and sacrifice of the wartime generation.

Waverley  Council stands in solid remembrance of this pivotal day and will pay tribute to all those who served, sacrificed and supported the war at home and abroad.

Today, the Mayor of Waverley, Councillor John Ward, will attend events in Farnham. He will also attend the Guildford Cathedral Service on Sunday, 11 May, along with the Mayoress, for their VE Day civic service.

Councillor Ward said:

“On VE Day, we pause to remember the courage and sacrifice of those who fought for freedom. Their resilience and unity shaped the future we enjoy today, and their dedication remains a source of inspiration to the current generation of Armed Forces personnel, many of whom live, work and serve in or near our borough. As a community, we honour their legacy by coming together to celebrate peace, democracy, and the enduring strength of our nation.

“I would also like to take the opportunity to reaffirm the borough’s enduring commitment to the Armed Forces Community. Our Armed Forces Covenant is a solid promise to those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, that they will be treated with fairness, respect and gratitude in the communities they call home.”

The council also recognises the vital contributions of veterans, reservists, cadet force adult volunteers, and Armed Forces families, valued members of Waverley’s social fabric.

If you want to participate in celebrations in the borough, there are several events across Waverley which you might like to attend. These include:

Churt – On 9 and 10 May, Churt will celebrate VE Day by hosting a nostalgic ‘Street Party’ themed event, featuring tributes to Dame Vera Lynn, Flanagan & Allen, and the Andrews Sisters at Churt Village Hall. Tickets £20/£15 available from Miscellanea and Ticketsource/CADS and include a three-course supper. All proceeds to the Royal British Legion.

Cranleigh—On 8 May, the Parish Council is holding a special, free, evening event from 7.30 to 9.35 pm. Dance to 40s-style music, listen to the Horsham Band, and enjoy a Cranleigh Dance and Theatre Arts performance and a Cadets Parade with bagpipes. There will also be a beacon lighting at 9.30 pm and more.

Ewhurst – On 10 May, a concert will commemorate VE Day on Ewhurst Recreation Ground. There will be a short service at the war memorial on the recreation ground preceding the free concert from 7.30 pm. There will also be a bar and BBQ.

Farnham – On 8 May, a Beacon Lighting event will occur from 8 pm – 9.45 pm in Gostrey Meadow with live music, a VE Day Tribute, and refreshments. The event will feature:  Alder Valley Brass Band, Winston Churchill’s Victory broadcast, Victoria Cluskey performing popular songs from the 1940s, VE Day Tribute to be read by Deputy Lieutenant Bill Biddell and Beacon Lighting with the High Sheriff, Peter Cluff. Light refreshments will be available, and a licensed bar will serve locally brewed beer.

Godalming – Besides funding a series of engaging workshops and drama performances in local schools under the theme “Homing in on the Home Front”, Godalming Town Council will host an exceptional remembrance service at the War Memorial at 9 am on 8 May. The service will include: a reading of the VE Day Proclamation by the Mayor of Godalming; a short commemorative service hosted by Godalming Minster; lowering of the Union Flag; laying of wreaths; and the playing of the Last Post.  The bells at Godalming Minster Church of St Peter & St Paul will ring out between 1830 and 1930.

Haslemere – An exciting free event on 10 May at Lion Green, filled with live music, delicious food stalls, military vehicles, themed stalls and fascinating history. Step back in time with historians sharing incredible stories and insights. Indulge in a variety of tasty treats from a local food stall. Dance and sing along to live performances that will transport you to the past. From 3 pm-9.30 pm.

Witley – Residents of Witley & Milford Parish are invited to attend their Annual Parish Meeting at 8 pm on 8 May at Burton Pavilion, Milford, to be followed by the lighting of a Beacon outside the pavilion, on Milford Heath at 9.30 pm, to commemorate the 80^th anniversary of VE Day.  This will be accompanied by songs led by the All Saints Church choir.

 Some Waverley residents claim that Dunsfold, the largest brownfield site in the borough of Waverley, with consent for 2,600 homes, should remain a redundant airfield. 

In the meantime, more countryside is proposed for housing development

An outline application at Ruffold Farm, Guildford Road for 70 homes – 21 of which will be “affordable” has been lodged with Waverley ~planners. WA/2025/00805 2025  

Godalming-based Planit Consulting has lodged outline plans with all matters reserved except for access and layout for erecting up to 70 residential units (including 21 affordable units) with a widened vehicle access point, associated parking, cycle storage, open space, and landscaping. With some modifications, the highway authority has supported the access off the Guildford Road, pictured below. A 40 mph limit exists on the Guildford Road.

The estate of 70 dwellings consists of 12 four-bedroom dwellings, 24 three-bedroom units, 22 two-bedroom units and 12 one-bedroom units. • 146 parking spaces and associated cycle storage spaces • Internal roads, communal open space, courtyards and parking areas. • Attenuation pond, pocket park and area for play, all in the south east corner

Ruffold Farm Cranleigh document 9276162

Objections have begun rolling in, with one saying:

The development suggested is completely out of character for the site, the Grade II-listed property, and the surrounding area as a whole. The site is on the village’s rural fringes, which have no other large-scale housing developments, reflecting its rural nature and providing a natural boundary with the hamlet of Rowly.

The biodiversity checklist is incomplete and in some cases incorrect. Specifically on point 2.7, where it states the site will not affect any flower-rich meadows adjacent to the site. The site is next to the common, which is left to grow wild for parts of the year and therefore provides important habitats for all types of animals and plants. This would be severely impacted by a development of this scale.

The Thames Water report stating that the current sewerage infrastructure would cope with the proposed development is frankly wrong and laughable. The system in place cannot cope now, and there are constant overflows and leaks along Guildford Road. As I type this, there are two sets of traffic.

What it really, really wants.

This week, SCC will ask the Government to approve its Two-Unitary Proposal

Tory-controlled Surrey raced ahead in the devolution stakes to avoid a county council election last week, which could have ended in a similar Tory bloodbath which occurred elsewhere in the country.

The proposal to divide Surrey into two unitary authorities as part of the local Government reorganisation will now be winging its way to the government, despite opposition from most of the 10 borough and district councils, including Guildford and Waverley.

Surrey CC has been fast-tracked for reorganisation, including the postponement of elections, without a clear plan for dealing with its debt. 

Julia McShane, Lib Dem group leader at GBC and council leader, said: “The Conservatives at Surrey County Council denied residents their democratic right to vote on 1 May so they could retain power and avoid the Conservative losses across the County.

“They have no mandate to put forward any proposal for devolution, let alone the two-unitary model they are supporting.

“Districts and boroughs have agreed on a three-unitary proposal which puts people and communities first. It creates financial savings and retains local decision-making and democratic representation. Residents across Surrey gave their views in a survey and overwhelmingly supported the three-unitary option, as do we in Guildford.

“It’s wrong for the Conservatives at Surrey County Council to try and put all the debt into a West Surrey Unitary. Wrong because the debt was created by Conservative-run borough councils and SCC has £1 billion debt of its own. Woking’s residents are already feeling the negative impact of that Conservative legacy.

“The debt issue must be resolved as part of the ongoing negotiation with the government. The three unitary authorities must be financially viable to deliver the vital services our communities need. Guildford’s residents should not be shouldering the Conservatives’ debt burden, and as Lib Dems, we will fight to get a fair deal for them.”

Waverley’s Lib Dem Leader, Paul Follows, has echoed Cllr McShane’s sentiments, telling councillors last week that new unitary authorities cannot be set up to fail.

I personally will not support any proposals without a resolution or plan on this, or indeed without some assurances from the government about how services in general will be financially sustainable in the future.

Neither the Surrey CC plan for two nor the other plan for three councils can work without this being sorted.

Surrey’s local authorities collectively hold a significant debt burden, totalling around £5.5 billion. This includes a substantial debt of £2.6 billion from Woking Borough Council and over £1 billion from Spelthorne. This debt is a major factor in the ongoing debate about local government reorganisation in Surrey. 

Our followers believed it was time Aunty Angie stepped into the Dunsfold Garden Village controversy.

They were so incensed that the largest brownfield site in the borough, with consent for 1,800 homes now, more later, lies vacant that they sent her this. Is Aunty Angie planning to sort out Dunsfold?

And this: Is Dunsfold Garden Village Done For?

They also sent copies to the Bursar of Trinity College, Cambridge, and the Nationals. https://www.thetimes.com/article/fdd3e1a3-b878-46bd-bd33-29c384a9957a?shareToken=80b3af9d7d0c74b94874ef20094d8f3b

Now, residents across Waverley have joined the campaign urging Angela Rayner to force the ultra-wealthy Cambridge college attended by the King to build 2,600 new homes, as included in The Local Plan but now removed.

Trinity College has  “mothballed” the 12-year development of the former aerodrome. 

Campaigners have written to the housing secretary asking her to persuade Trinity, which has a £1.5 billion endowment, to kickstart the development at Dunsfold Park, one of the largest brownfield sites in the country. They have also set up a Facebook Page. Called, Build Dunsfold https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61575066542391

One of the biggest opponents of the development has now jumped onto the Dunsfold bandwagon.  Yes, folks, you guessed none other than Sir Jeremy Hunt! Having helped to delay the development for years, appearing and objecting at a public inquiry and telling the public at pre-election hustings just a year ago that:

“I live in fear of the development at Dunsfold ever going ahead. The traffic will be using the rat run  past my home on their way to Milford Station.”

Now suddenly he turns onto the road to Dunsfold. Come on, Sir Jem, fess up and tell the public what you really, really want?

Simples. He and his colleagues are worried that Aunty Angie’s housing target for the borough will see almost every green field, perhaps even an allotment in Bramley, sporting thousands more homes soon.

In his latest newsletter, Jem told the world and his wife that he had visited Trinity’s Bursar to determine why development wasn’t happening. Here’s his take.  When the real reason Dunsfold lies unspoiled is? 

The real reason for the delay, folks. IS, yes, you guessed,  MONEY!

Not pollution, or a contractual dispute, the Cambridge outfit wants to sell the site unencumbered to the highest bidder, having fallen foul of the previous wannabe owner, Threadneedle. COLUMBIA THREDNEEDLE INVESTMENTS FAIL TO STITCH UP DUNSFOLD PARK

WHAT’S GOING ON LOCALLY, says Sir Jem.

THE FUTURE OF DUNSFOLD PARK is still uncertain, as explained in this fascinating but I suspect speculative piece in yesterday’s Sunday Times. The pausing of development has massively added to pressure to develop elsewhere. It seems to be the result of the need to remediate the site of potential pollution (which is expensive) alongside a contractual dispute between the owners and developers. I have met with both sides now to see if the issues can be resolved – including last week with the Bursar of owner Trinity College Cambridge. But even if the development does go ahead we are unlikely to meet Angela Rayners’s ridiculous doubling of local housing targets which is something I will continue to raise in parliament.

I actually emailed Jeremy Hunt on the subject a couple of weeks back following the WW article – he appreciates the situation with Waverley falling short on house build criteria and that it will result in development on inappropriate sites, but doubts the government has any intention of compulsory purchasing Dunsfold.

Waverley Web scores again. 

Wait until Aunty Angie hears that!

The idiom ” red rags to a bull” comes to mind.

Scores of householders are ganging up against the council, crying…

“We want our CIL money back. We want justice.”

For the uninitiated, CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) is a cost imposed on development to support infrastructure, such as schools, roads, and community facilities provided by local authorities, including parish and county councils.

Setting the record straight on CIL

Controversy surrounding CIL is not just a Waverley issue. High charges imposed on developers and householders cause national concern, particularly from baffled householders who have inadvertently failed to complete vital paperwork.  

Waverley’s Tory Group – led by Cllr Jane Austin, who, like her namesake, loves a good story, is intent on making a drama out of a crisis, using the CIL controversy to batter the ruling administration. An administration that has already acknowledged the levy is complex and has pledged to review it urgently.

Most of the present Tory incumbents were not members when the following decision was made, and those who were conveniently forgot.

The Waverley Web recalls that in October 2018, the Conservative-led Council chose not to offer discretionary CIL relief. At the time, the Lib Dem representative, Cllr Paul Follows, voiced concerns about the policy’s rigidity and potential to unfairly burden homeowners and small-scale developers.

The then-‘new boy on the block’, as Tory councillors then referred to him, ignored his warnings, so they forged ahead with the policy by majority vote.

Cllr Lauren Atkins now wants the council to use a “common-sense approach” where  administrative mistakes were made and genuine householder errors had occurred/ She urged to act immediately and “wipe the slate clean ” without delay using powers it already has.” Her amendment was lost.

Some councils, like Guildford, still operate the  106 legal agreement system for infrastructure improvements. Dunsfold Garden Village falls into that category, with squillions of liabilities.

In a nutshell, the Rainbow Administration proposed a motion to ensure that CIL continued to support sustainable development and fund infrastructure fairly and proportionately. Due to public concern,  it wants to form  a cross-party  executive working group to focus on:

1. The Rationale for Introducing CIL in 2018 and examine why CIL was chosen over continued reliance in general on Section 106 agreements or alternative mechanisms, and whether the impact on individual homeowners was thoroughly considered.

2. The Absence of Discretionary Relief: To establish why the Council did not adopt an exceptional circumstances policy, which could have allowed flexibility in cases of hardship or genuine error by applicants and to explore legal and procedural options for introducing a policy.

3.  To explore the legal and procedural options for withdrawing or amending CIL Liability Notices in exceptional circumstances, and whether a formal protocol could be introduced.

4. To consider changes to the current system, including introducing ‘an exceptional circumstances policy’ and ensuring that penalties are proportionate and fair.

The Executive and the Council would finally consider a Cross-Party Working Group’s recommendations.

What is happening in Waverley is happening elsewhere. It is the unintended consequence of legislation brought in by the government in 2018 and adopted by  WBC shortly after to support local communities and provide them with improved facilities.

Waverley CIL Enforcement Policy adopted by WBC Tory Executive 17th December 2024:

The Devil is in the detail.

 Not all development is liable for CIL – buildings where  “people do not normally go” or intermittently inspect or maintain fixed plant or machinery are exempt. Or when completed, the development has a gross internal area of less than 100 sqm (unless it comprises one or more dwellings). Local Authority charging schedules also exclude other development types.

Last week, Bramley Village Hall was packed to the gunwales as residents came together to defend the village allotments and what is collectively known as the ‘Bonfire Field’ from Paul Hunt Investments Ltd (PHI).

PHI has been steadily helping developers to concrete over Bramley for the past 12 years and has been responsible for a mixture of some attractive developments (a former builders yard that had been the site of a manor house that was demolished in the 1950s became a scheme for eight dwellings on the footprint of the original house and now resembles a smart Neo-Georgian terrace) to the deadly dull Orchard Cottage (a three-bed detached house that has nothing to recommend it and is a blot of blandness on the landscape).

PHI now has ambitious plans for a scheme of 26 dwellings (including 14 affordable properties) on land at Park Drive in Bramley, which is located within the Green Belt and AONB. The site will be known as Byham Meadow (presumably a nod to Councillor By-Pass Byham!).

Let’s all By-Pass Bramley – shall we? Or…maybe, just maybe…. we should all By-Pass Byham?

Having previously worked in cahoots with Bramley Parish Council in its submissions PHI bemoaned the fact that a recent request to meet with Bramley PC was refused on 12th July 2023 and during a telephone conversation between their client and the Chair of Bramley PC, the Chair confirmed that the PC would not support the application and would not allow a consultation with the community to take place at the Village Hall as the PC felt there was enough social housing in the village.

Undeterred, PHI embarked on its own community consultation, including, for the first time, setting up a website to seek the opinions of every household in Bramley.

Councillor Jane Austin, ably supported by Kevin Deanus and a gentleman she repeatedly referred to as her ‘lovely husband’, chaired the meeting at the Village Hall, where residents expressed their concerns.

However Councillor Kevin Deanus issued a cautionary warning to the residents of Bramley when he told of how the sleepy village of Alfold had morphed from a population of under 300 dwellings to over 1,000 dwellings in a relatively short period if the latest planning application with Waverley is consented – which, in all likelihood, it will be!  There was a collective drawing of breath as those present digested this startling information.

However, it didn’t stop residents from raising issues such as: 

• Inadequate access to the site.
• Disappointment at the possibility of the Green Belt / AONB being concreted over despite there being no extenuating circumstances.
• The uncertainty over whether the so-called affordable element of the housing would actually be affordable – would it be Social Rent [equating to circa 55% of typical market rents], Affordable Rent [equating to 80% of prevailing market rents] or Shared Equity [where the local authority or registered providers can offer tenants a share of the property].
• PHI was trying to rush the scheme through before Bramley’s Neighbourhood Plan was adopted.
• Loss of wildlife habitat – particularly for badgers and slow worms, which are abundant, according to those living near the site and regularly using the allotments.
• Flooding. One lady, who said she’d had an allotment on the site for many years, told of how, in the early years, she tended the allotment year-round. However, in the last few years, since other developments had been built nearby, the allotments were now flooded and a muddy quagmire for several months of the year.
• Pressure on existing services, such as water.  The Hall rang with laughter when Councillor Austin explained that Waverley BC, in its wisdom, had consulted with Southern Water as a statutory consultant on the planning applicant, when the Council should have consulted Thames Water!

Oh dear!

Southern Water had responded to the Council as follows: 

‘Thank you for your email.  Unfortunately, Southern Water cannot comment on this application because the development site is not located within Southern Water’s statutory area for water supply/wastewater drainage services.   Please get in touch with Thames Water, which is the relevant statutory undertaker.’

Although it has no bearing on the application, when appealed to, a member of the Bramley Bonfire Committee confirmed that if consent were granted for the application, it would, in all likelihood, be the end of the Bramley Bonfire – at least on that site.  He said that, due to the proximity of the proposed housing to the bonfire and, more importantly, the accompanying firework display, he felt that, on grounds of health and safety, it would be impossible to continue holding the much-loved annual event there or to obtain the necessary insurance to do so.

PHI is relying quite heavily on Waverley BC, following the mothballing of Dunsfold Park by its owners, Trinity College Cambridge, now unable to demonstrate more than 1.28 years of housing supply.  This failure results in something called ‘Tilted balance’ in favour of sustainable development.  They also claim that their scheme will assist in ‘addressing the housing crisis in Bramley and the wider area of Waverley …’  Suffice to say, it’s news to Bramley PC and the majority of Bramley residents that there’s a ‘housing crisis’ in Bramley! Or presumably anywhere else!

Anyway, why Bramley? After all, why not Cranleigh, Ewhurst, Alfold, Dunsfold, Farnham, Haslemere, anywhere but certainly not Wonersh or Bramley?

Furthermore, according to PHI, ‘The provision of 26 dwellings should be considered a ‘windfall gain’, as the site is not currently allocated.’

At the end of the meeting, a show of hands, invited by Councillor Austin, clearly demonstrated that no one in the packed Village Hall supported the development. Whether Angela Rayner will care what a room full of middle-class, predominantly Conservative voters in a quiet village in Surrey thinks is another matter!

Suppose you want to share your views on this latest attempt to concretely over our villages. In that case, you can go to Waverley Borough Council’s website and the planning portal and look up Planning Application WA/2025/00581.

As the tumbleweed blows and a herd of white elephants thunder towards Farnham, a Waverley Councillor is calling on Surrey colleagues to come up with a solution for its £70m Commercial Investment Cock-up.

Cllr Tony Fairclough Seconded by: Cllr Mark Merryweather featured from left to right will propose at this week’s Full Council Meeting that Tory-controlled SCC devise a Business Plan that takes the Blight out of Brightwells. A Tory-devised development dubbed by residents as a white elephant they opposed from the outset.  

The Waverley Web wonders where the woman who promoted the scheme, former Farnham Borough & Surrey County Councillor Denise Le Gal, is now.

With only seven tenants in place, the vast majority of the retail units in the Brightwells Development remain unlet, almost one year after Practical Completion was achieved.

The car park is not yet fit to be handed over to this Council (Waverley) and is currently generating no revenue despite the significant service charges arising from the green wall that surrounds it.

It is understood that Coppa Club is the second of three anchor tenants to pull out of the Brightwells Development, despite the fact that the redevelopment of Brightwells House was apparently completed to Coppa Club’s particular specifications, which, if true, will make it almost impossible to let to an alternative tenant.

There can be no doubt that the Brightwells Development requires a business plan. The failure to develop such a business plan will have a significant negative effect on the revenues of both Surrey County Council and Waverley Borough Council, resulting in either a decline in the services that the residents of both Councils rely upon and/or an increase in the taxes required to pay for them.

The silence surrounding Surrey County Council’s proposals to revitalise the Brightwells Development is deafening. In its 2025/26 budget, Surrey County Council chose to saddle taxpayers with £4.4m of additional costs, yet all that’s being offered are promotions such as the opportunity to …

“Win A Weekend At Brightwells”.

Without an effective business plan from Surrey County Council, one developed and communicated in partnership with the parties most affected by it, this Council is concerned that the Brightwells Development will become the very thing that Farnham residents feared.

A desolate ‘ghost town’ and potential magnet for anti-social behaviour. In short, a blight on the town of Farnham. This Council Resolves to: 

Call upon the Leader to write to Greg Stafford, Conservative MP for Farnham & Bordon, within seven working days of the Council minutes being published 

To formally request that the MP for Farnham & Bordon asks the Conservative Administration at Surrey County Council to engage with local and financial stakeholders to develop an effective business plan for the commercial elements of the Brightwells Development, including the Brightwells Car Park;

To note in the letter, the Council’s concern is that the failure to develop such a business plan will have a significant negative effect on the Page 341 Agenda Item 12. revenues of both Surrey County Council and Waverley Borough Council; 

To cc’ the following individuals in the letter:  The Clerk of Farnham Town Council The Leader of Surrey County Council A copy of the letter, representations or response should be circulated to all Councillors within seven working days of receipt of a response.

Sparks flew at Waverley Towers recently when the future of the borough’s grounds maintenance contract was considered.

The debate around the issue revealed more than a few wrinkles in the negotiations with Krinkels (UK)!

Not everyone was entirely convinced that the council should be spending £1m by taking back the maintenance of its grounds “in-house.” Particularly after Tory Leader Cllr Jane Austin reminded her colleagues, with monotonous regularity, that the council’s days are numbered, Jeremy Hunt’s lady-in-waiting gleefully reminds colleagues, many of whom have clocked up decades of loyal service to the borough, that the skids are under them whenever an opportunity arises.

However, she said that spending a million pounds of ratepayers’ money during a period of local authority upheaval was not a sensible or prudent use of taxpayers’ money; she claimed insufficient evidence was provided to make a decision. She questioned the officer’s support and evidence for the change. However, she was told the information had been provided when the decision had been made a year earlier, which she would have been aware of.

Why wasn’t this figure in the Council’s budget?

The Monitoring Officer reminded members who felt they did not have sufficient information to abstain from voting.

The Executive decided in March 2025 to take back control of its grounds maintenance service and to begin functioning on November 1st, 2025. However, to mobilise the service, £1,000,000 was needed to buy machinery, vehicles, equipment, and other essentials.  

Krinkels (UK), formerly Continental Landscapes Limited, was given a twelve-month extension to the grounds maintenance contract, which ceases in November 2025. This follows a previous five-year tenure. 

Cllrs heard that Krinkels’  performance had been positive, with 89%—99% performance receiving incentive payments through established metrics and customer satisfaction surveys. 

Cllr Steve Williams said taking back the contract would lead to a

“more directly managed, efficient, and responsive service. During a period of dramatic change. The decision has already been agreed upon to enable us to be more flexible and provide a greener service.

All that remained was the council’s agreement to spend £1m to provide the tools to do the job. Any future authority would significantly benefit from cost reductions, particularly as many of the borough’s towns and parishes wanted to take ownership of maintaining their own green spaces. It would enable W to manage that process smoothly, which would be challenging with the existing contract. 

However, when Mayor John Ward’s bete noir, Cllr Jerry Hyman, questioned the legitimacy of making the decision without sufficient information and asked if Krinkels had been consulted on the proposed change, he attempted to gag him again! With no success.

Cllr Hyman said: I want to know, have we spoken to Krinkels on this? If I cannot get an answer, then I shall have to ask them myself.  Later, he said:

I have spoken to them; no, they haven’t been spoken to.

Why aren’t we given the alternative option of not spending £1m? I am not against the principle that there are savings, but we are spending that sort of money in the death throws of this council. What am I missing here? How can I justify this expenditure to residents? We have a duty to be prudent. We are entitled to have the answers to our concerns and questions. This happens time and time again.

He argued no decision had been made on the proposal to spend £1m.

“Of course, we have spoken to Krinkels,” said Cllr Steve Williams. This has been a matter of ongoing negotiations. The decision has already been made.

He Drew attention to council papers in August 2024. Krinkels did not anticipate that the contract would be extended or that a further extension was possible. Delaying a decision by spurious assumptions that have now been made would not help the situation. We can vote today in favour, against, or abstain.

Cllr Hyman called for an amendment to defer the Executive’s decision for further scrutiny by the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee and for reconsideration at a future date by the Council. His motion was lost by a narrow vote after strong support by others.

Leader Cllr Paul Follows said that despite an opportunity, no request for further scrutiny had been made when the original decision was made a year earlier. ~ He warned that a decision was now “time critical.”

Godalming Town Council had benefitted from doing its own ground maintenance. When Surrey didn’t, as was often the case, they were able to step in. Residents valued this.

“Our crews get out and fix things within a day. The same flexibility is proposed here.”

 Cllr Ward rebutted Cllr Hyman’s earlier claim that Krinkels had not been consulted. He was followed by Waverley head honcho CEO Pedro Wrobels, who seldom intervenes and said that they most definitely had.

Cllr Jacqui Keen said. Councillors were very confused.

We have been told that the Executive had spoken to Krinkels. Cllr Hyman says he has spoken to them, but they haven’t been informed.

Someone here is not telling the truth!

Mayor John Ward said that to clarify the position, the CEO would speak.

CEO Pedro Wrobels   said:

“I can clarify that we have spoken to Krinkels on a regular basis. The Assistant Director in charge, Marcus Harvey, has spoken to the MD  of Krinkels as part of this discussion in the last six weeks and on a frequent basis throughout this process.”.

After a recorded vote, the Motion to spend the £lm was passed by 21 votes for, 14 against, and three abstentions.

Krinkels changed its name from Continental Landscapes in January 2025. Its annual turnover is £48m.

Wates wants to Wing its way to Waverley to join the merry band of builders eager to concrete over more  Alfold farmland with 70 homes, despite the villagers’ outcry against it.

The cash register’s about to go Kerching once again for village farmers once Bridian Farmhouse is demolished in Sachel Court Drive. Or, in the case of Care Ashore, formerly The Merchant Seaman’s War Memorial Society, building just up the road for its charity.

Wates wants to join the long line of developers, including Bellway Homes, Cala Homes, Vistry Homes, Antler Homes, Thakeham Homes, and Abri Homes—could Sherlock be next?

Suffice it to say anyone who wants to build homes has their eagle eyes on Alfold—a once-little rural village on the Surrey/Sussex border that has been sacrificed on the altar of numerous Government Inspectors. Only a handful of houses have been allowed by Waverley Planners, despite the protestations of its MP Jeremy Hunt, who regularly blames Waverley for the overdevelopment of a village with little or no amenities. 

https://planning360.waverley.gov.uk:4443/w2webparts/Resource/Civica/Handler.ashx/Doc/pagestream?cd=inline&pdf=true&docno=9261782

Wates says it is consulting with Southern Water about flooding and water issues. However, Thames Water is the responsible authority!

 In February, a leaflet containing a feedback form was mailed to 402 properties. A sample of the feedback received from the public consultation can be viewed here. The developer revealed an example in its submission document. No names, no pack drill.

“Dear Sirs

Having received a notification of public consultation by post I am writing to express my objection to the development of up to 80 new homes on the aforementioned site. Alfold is a small village with very limited amenities and an infrastructure already groaning under the weight of the number of new developments that have sprung up in recent years. This is evidenced by the well publicised issues with sewage in the area in recent weeks. Any further developments will only exacerbate the issues more seriously not to mention the loss of green space in the area home to many endangered creatures such as owls and bats. And don’t get me started on the additional strains more development will place on the already horrendous A281 into Guildford. No more houses for Alfold thank you. I shall be strongly objecting to this development and any others that are put forward. Protect our villages!”

The Applicant claims it has endeavoured to conduct a consultation process to ensure the locals are properly informed of its Land West of Loxwood Road plans with access into Satchel our Drive. The site adjoins a huge acreage on which  Thakeham Homes has an option and where it intends to build another 400 homes. Or, more likely, flog off to another developer as it did previously following its successful appeal

Wates says  the following key themes were present throughout the feedback received:

Lack of amenities and overdevelopment: Comments raised concerns regarding the very limited amenities in Alfold despite the many new development proposals in recent years. Public transport: Some respondents commented on the lack of an active bus route through the village, with limited connectivity to key services and facilities. Sewage and drainage capacity and flood risk:

Respondents commented that the existing sewage and drainage network is currently at capacity and cannot cope with any further development in Alfold. Furthermore, it was noted that there are frequent flooding issues in the village, which may be exacerbated by further growth. Local infrastructure: Several respondents commented that the infrastructure in and around Alfold cannot cope with the current population, with specific reference to a lack of schools, GP surgery and shops, which may be made worse by additional development in the village. Traffic and access: Respondents claimed traffic through the village is already challenging.

Public transport: Some respondents commented on the lack of an active bus route through the village, with limited connectivity to key services and facilities. Sewage and drainage capacity and flood risk: Respondents commented that the existing sewage and drainage network is currently at capacity and cannot cope with any further development in Alfold. Furthermore, it was noted that there are frequent flooding issues in the village, which may be exacerbated by additional development.

Local infrastructure: Several respondents commented that the infrastructure in and around Alfold cannot cope with the current population, with specific reference to a lack of schools, GP surgery and shops, which may be made worse by additional development in the village. Traffic and access: Respondents claimed traffic through the village is challenging and would worsen with additional cars on the road network. In addition, one comment noted the entrance to the site cannot be via Sachel Court Drive as it is too close to Sweeters Field Road, which is too close to the blind corner on Loxwood Road eastbound.

The proposed housing density is in keeping with the other recent consents within the village. Lack of amenities As mentioned by the Inspector in the Appeal reference APP/R3650/W/21/3278196, Alfold has a reasonable range of services and facilities. Between Alfold & Alfold Crossways is a petrol and associated shop (M&S), a café & deli selling local groceries (The Alfold Larder), a post office, a local sports/ football club, a veterinary surgery and a small business centre. Compliance with the Alfold Neighbourhood Plan (January 2024) The Alfold Neighbourhood Plan fails to allocate any sites for new development. Waverley Borough Council, however, has a 1.28 Housing Land Supply and, as referenced in the supporting Planning Statement, is significantly undersupplying on affordable housing. The proposal will allow for deliverable housing.

A pre-development foul water capacity check has been undertaken with Southern Water, and Wates continues to work with them to understand the extent of the capacity shortfall and the steps Southern Water will take to reinforce its infrastructure. As per the supporting Flood Risk Assessment, the on-site sustainable drainage system (SuDs) will ensure surface water does not contribute to flooding within the village. This report also shows the site does not fall within an area of flood risk. Local infrastructure The planning application submission will contribute over £2 million to Waverley Borough Council in the form of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Council can spend this money at its discretion to invest in local infrastructure. There will also be S106 contributions that will likely provide further investment into local infrastructure improvements.

BEFORE

AFTER

Rumour has it that the Bursar at TTC. has finally given in to Government and public pressure.

Why would we build houses there that nobody except the local council wants when we can help Gatwick expand? Said Richard Turnabout 

With a little help from our friends in nearby Dunsfold village to extend the runway just a smidgeon, it could be up, up, and away, and hey ho, happy days for our college coffers as our cup runneth over with filthy lucre.  

Life’s not all milk and honey these days for the country’s universities, you know! —it’s not milk and honey we are after; it’s milk and money. Chocks away, we say!

It all started when Aunty Rachel from Accounts said what she wanted – what she really really wanted, was to boost the economy with a third runway at Heathrow. But recently, things haven’t been looking so good there, so she wants a quick win, and where better than a second runway at Gatwick. It’s a long-held dream to use its emergency runway. But it does need just a little extra space elsewhere- and where better than nearby FoldDuns?  It will undoubtedly boost the local economy of Arfold, as it is so often referred to by government inspectors who are eager to make Arfold the new Crawley with its very own Easy Jet base. “Destination Arfold,” here we come.

Peter Barker says: “GACC is launching a legal challenge of Gatwick Airport’s Emergency Runway Expansion.  But the other Mr Barker, the local prolific barn-builder, says if there’s enough money in it for him, he will help the runway expand, and then he can then retire to his villa in the sun, his Chalet in the Alps, or even his condo in America. However, there may be another taker in the running.

I want Dunsfold Airport – it’s mine, I need it for security purposes, I want it, give it to me or I’ll cwy and cwy until cwap my pants

On your Marks Jet Set Go at Farnborough Airport?

Or not, if Your Waverley has anything to do with it.

At Tuesday’s council meeting, almost everyone agreed to support Rushmore Borough Council’s efforts to stop the expansion of Farnborough Airport.

However, a handful of councillors believed the council should keep its nose out of the stuff of other people’s lives!

Debating a proposal from Greens Cllr Steve Williams, the council heard that flights by private jets are expected to increase dramatically if the new airport owners get the go-ahead. He accepted there was some local benefit to businesses but believed the harm outweighed those benefits in a climate emergency.

Flights are predicted to increase from the existing 19,000 p.a. to between 50 and 70,000 flights per year, bringing the accompanying noise and pollution to towns and villages around Farnham and Aldershot.

Cllr Williams claimed that most flights by this elite transport carried 2.5 passengers, mainly on their way to the ski slopes or the Mediterranean sun. Often, planes carried just their pets. He asked If it was a priority to transport Fido to join your family sojourn to Italy.

However, the Waverley Web knows of instances where sofas were flown from one billionaire home to another.

Councillors recognised that the expansion of both Gatwick and Heathrow was becoming increasingly likely, and its towns and villages would experience increasing noise and pollution – but these civil aircraft carry thousands of passengers. The local economy and jobs benefited enormously.

There was strong opposition from some who registered their dislike of getting involved in another borough’s issues, regardless of whether it was a neighbour or how much it affected Waverley residents. Some said the motion smacked of jealousy of the wealthy, who could use their money to travel how they liked when they liked. It was their money, their choice!

Some opposed any suggestion of using its officers’ time to support its objection to expansion through legal means. Now, due to local government reorganisation, was not a time to spend taxpayers’ money. Rushmore would refuse the application on planning grounds, it would go to appeal, and the Secretary of State would likely finally decide.

Cllr Carole Cockburn said Waverley was right to object to increased noise and pollution but should leave it to Rushmore Council to fight it out.

Cllr Jane Austin said Waverley’s residents cared more about jobs and growth than noise or pollution; Waverley had no control over the situation, nor should it.

Cllr Williams’ motion was approved with 26 votes to seven against it, with two abstentions.

Cllrs cannot change or contribute anything by abstaining.

The motion:

Environmental and Social Impact: The proposed expansion of Farnborough Airport is expected to increase the number of flights, leading to heightened noise pollution and reduced air quality, particularly affecting residents in the North West of Waverley. The environmental impact of aviation, particularly private jet travel, is substantial, with per capita carbon emissions from private jet use significantly exceeding those of commercial airline passengers.

Disproportionate Benefits and Costs: Private jet travel remains accessible only to a small percentage of the population, while the broader public, including Waverley residents, bears the environmental and social costs of increased air traffic. Expansion of the airport will primarily benefit a limited group of affluent travellers while imposing additional burdens on local communities. Climate Commitments:

Waverley Borough Council has declared a climate emergency and is committed to a net zero goal by 2030. Supporting the expansion of Farnborough Airport would be contrary to these commitments and to national and international climate goals aimed at reducing aviation emissions.

This Council opposes the expansion of Farnborough Airport due to its negative impact on the environment, air quality, noise pollution, and contribution to carbon emissions.

It expresses support for the campaign opposing the expansion and calls upon Rushmoor Borough Council to reject the planning application for the proposed expansion.  Requests of the Assistant Director, Legal Services and Information Governance, that Waverley Borough Council’s legal team explore potential legal avenues for challenging the expansion of Farnborough Airport, including judicial review or other appropriate legal mechanisms.

It urges the government to adopt stricter regulations on private aviation to limit its environmental impact and ensure that the aviation sector contributes to national carbon reduction targets by adopting measures to reduce rather than increase the volume of air traffic. Council resolves to require the Leader of the Council to communicate the text of this motion and provide copies of such communication to all Waverley Borough Councillors to:

The Leader of Rushmoor Borough Council, Councillor Gareth Williams  Local Members of Parliament, Jeremy Hunt MP, Zoe Franklin MP, and Greg Stafford MP  Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander, MP  Secretary of State for Energy Security & Net Zero, Ed Milliband, MP  The Chief Executive of Farnborough Airport, Simon Geere  Campaign groups opposing the expansion, ensuring collaboration and support for community-led opposition efforts  The clerks of all town and parish councils.

Waverley Planners has given the Pegasus Group the go-ahead for an illuminated Advertisement Sign for a new Domino’s takeaway at 222 High Street, Cranleigh, as approved by planning application WA/2024/01369.

So that you know, Cranleigh Villagers.  As far as Waverley Planners are concerned,  Cranleigh is now a Town!

The site is located within Cranleigh Town Centre High Street, as detailed in the map excerpt below from the Town Centres Retail Study Update produced by Waverley Borough Council.

 The new business’s site is within a designated Town Centre, near several other retail, food, and service outlets, including The Curry Inn at 214-216 High Street, Glamorous Nails at 194 High Street, and Village Grill at 252 High Street.

Waverley says other outlets already display a volume of signage that incorporates several different illumination methods to ensure they remain visible. Externally illuminated fascia signage (using spotlights) was previously in place at the application site to accommodate the previous occupants, Village Carpets and Flooring.  The site is not statutorily listed but is located within Cranleigh Conservation Area. The closest listed building is Cranleigh War Memorial, 200m east of the application site.

Bye-bye, Milford Golf Course. Hello, bricks and mortar, as Tim and Isobel House give up their fight over a covenant that has prevented development there for eight years.

They said:

So, we are afraid that after having spent an enormous amount of our time and money in the last 8 years opposing the development on MGC we felt compelled to bring an end to the litigation. Life is too short and there are other places to live.

 After years of battle between residents, Waverley Planners, and developers over a scheme to build 200 homes on Milford Golf Course, development is about to tee off.

Along with another 350 on the remainder of Milford Golf Club to the east of Station Lane, where it is believed Redrow intends to build, this would signal the closure of the golf club and the release of land from the Green Belt. This would result in 540 new dwellings on each side of Station Lane between the River Ock and Milford Staton. In addition, 214 new dwellings have already been consented at Secretts Hurst Farm.

Is yet another development accessing a narrow country road about to happen? Will commuters on their way to the station soon be playing dodgems with HGVs and increased traffic, as they are already doing in Milford village?  

“Has Milford Golf Course sold developers a Bogey?”

Mr and Mrs Tim House wrote this to their supporters.

This is our final update on the Milford Golf Course development, and we are sorry to say an unwelcome one because we expect the development of 190 dwellings now to go ahead on the west of Station Lane.

Over the weekend we signed a confidential settlement agreement with the developer ending the proceedings that the developer brought against us to overturn our covenant. The trial was due to commence in the High Court tomorrow.

We and our barrister were very confident that we would have won this battle in court, convincingly, but the stark reality is that Milford will be heavily developed over the next few years and the development site will be built on at some density so, although we would have won this battle, winning the longer war was beyond our control given WBC’s determination to see this area developed. We did not think we could achieve the final vindication of having the development site returned to Green Belt in the current political environment given the pressing need for housing. So, we have taken the pragmatic option of a settlement that leaves us in a position to move freely in the future if, as we now expect, the development will proceed and its impact on us is intolerable.

Three things in particular influenced our final decision:

1.⁠ ⁠We believe Crown Golf has devised a plan with another national house builder (Redrow) to build at least 350 houses on the remainder of Milford Golf Club to the east of Station Lane. We believe WBC’s planning officers have received a formal presentation on this plan and given a favourable indication of likely support. This development would involve the closure of the Golf Club and the release of the land from Green Belt. This would mean a total of 540 (190 +350) new dwellings being built along either side of Station Lane between the River Ock and Milford station. This is in addition to the 214 new dwellings at Secretts, Hurst Farm which now have full planning permission.

2.⁠ ⁠The new Government Planning Framework which came into effect in December 2024 makes local involvement in these decisions and opposition to them even more difficult, especially if the local planning officers are development minded and developer friendly, as WBC’s plainly are in relation to Milford.

3.⁠ ⁠Other local landowners in the immediate vicinity have put their land up for consideration for development in the next iteration of the Local Plan. Extension of the Milford settlement boundary south towards Rake Lane and Milford Station, together with the new Government guidance, makes the potential release of this land from Green Belt more likely.

So, we are afraid that after having spent an enormous amount of our time and money in the last 8 years opposing the development on MGC we felt compelled to bring an end to the litigation. Life is too short and there are other places to live.

We remain very grateful nonetheless for your support and we are both extremely sorry not to have been able to find a way to use our legal rights to assist the local community in achieving a more balanced planning outcome for Milford. We feel you have been very let down by successive Heads of Planning at WBC.

We should say that your local ward counsellors, Cllr Maxine Gale and Cllr Phoebe Sullivan, have been exceedingly responsive and supportive in seeking a fair planning outcome for Milford and we wanted to record our gratitude to them.

Yours sincerely

Tim and Isobel House

Anger is mounting among the towns and villages of Waverley against Trinity College Cambridge’s decision to “mothball” the borough’s largest brownfield site.

A site earmarked for 1,800 new homes and more in the Local Plan!

In a borough falling far short of its 5-year housing land supply with only

1.28 years! Some believe even that miserable figure is an overestimate.

Waverley’s housing land supply is going down…and down.

However, Deputy PM and Housing Minister Angela Rayner may have the power to unlock the magic antidote to Trinity College Cambridge’s lethargy. Under new planning powers, she could signal the go-ahead for the compulsory purchase of the controversial airfield. 

Angie and her High Viz Warriors want to get the builders into The largest brownfield site in Waverley!

While  Waverley residents watch their treasured green fields and some valuable and productive farmland disappear under concrete, new planning powers about to be introduced by the government could save the day. The “hope value” of the former Dunsfold airfield site could be reduced, leaving its owners nursing a nasty cold.

Anger is growing in the borough’s towns and villages as 600-odd acres of the airfield’s previously developed land, mainly tarmac roads and runways, are left to filmmakers using static 747s and military aircraft featured on Netflix, etc.  Very little flies there now. Other than the odd pheasant.

Despite TCC sitting on a six-year-old planning consent for 1,800 homes—and many more in the Local Plan bag—not a home has been built, not a family housed, and none of the accompanying long-promised infrastructure benefits—schools, health facilities—just a very smart road to nowhere!

In the meantime, developers are working overtime on plans to build on Waverley’s numerous green fields—particularly those in Farnham, Haslemere, around Cranleigh, and the eastern villages, including Alfold! Waverley’s residents would be, in the words of Pretty Woman, “Pirates of Penzance” if they could see Waverley’s Call for Sites Dossier! Kerching!

Here’s a part of the COMPULSORY PURCHASE rules coming to a council near you.

No 19. The notes say that a more streamlined and efficient process for compulsory purchase orders would be introduced to enable more effective land assembly through public sector-led schemes. This would include simplifying the information required to be included in newspaper notices and delegating more decisions.

20 An existing power to remove ‘hope value’ (value attributed to the prospect of planning permissions) would be extended to town/parish and community councils where they are using CPO powers to deliver affordable or social housing provision. 

The devolution of local authorities that are moving ahead also includes these measures.

Homes England Compulsory Purchase Powers – The devolution of the Homes England Compulsory Purchase Powers will enable Surrey County Council and Homes England to work collaboratively to reduce the barriers to affordable housing delivery, regeneration and broader housing growth. Surrey County Council has met the government’s readiness criteria, and the power is expected to be devolved in 2025, subject to Parliament approving the required secondary legislation conferring the appropriate functions.

So watch out, Richard Turncoat, a new unitary authority, could be coming for you. You cannot hold Waverley as a hostage for much longer.

To be continued… watch this space. Because Gatwick, too, may have a cunning plan!!!

Cranleigh’s long-awaited dream of a new modern Leisure Centre is a step closer with the UNANIMOUS  support of Waverley Planners.

The committee said a new energy-efficient building was long overdue to replace its dilapidated existing facilities, which were recently closed to swimmers for vital and costly building repairs. 

Members of the council’s planning committee were reminded that the Cranleigh Leisure Centre was, and always had been, a Community Swimming pool and not, as some had suggested, a Competition Pool. 

The new centre would be built on the Village Way car park on a new site to ensure business as usual in the old building, which will ultimately be demolished. There would be some disruption to parking in the short term, but this could be overcome if a former site in Knowle Lane – once owned by Cranleigh Parish Council and sold to a third party—could be used for temporary interim parking.

Following an agreement with its operators, the much-valued Thursday Market will be temporarily relocated to the Stocklund Square Car Park.

While the exciting project cost is around £40m, nearby homes in Charts Close and Little Manor Gardens expressed concerns about possible noise and disturbance. These homes are adjacent to the car park and site boundary. However, officers assured that every effort will be made to minimise adverse effects. 

While supporting the scheme, which replaces a swimming pool built by villagers’ fundraising efforts 50 years ago, Cllr Jane Austin was concerned at the lack of spectator seating, which she claimed was vital for School and Swimming Club galas. However, members heard this was an “operational matter” and not a planning consideration. But this could be overcome in the future.

Cllr Carole Cochburn didn’t like the design, saying it was too modern and wouldn’t suit everyone. However, it was pointed out that Victorian-type buildings cannot house swimming pools and leisure facilities.

There will be no squash courts or saunas in the new building, but other facilities will be introduced.

A  Cranleigh resident, Mr Reading, was vociferous in his objection to the scheme in principle. He said it would do nothing to enhance Cranleigh. He predicted it would cause increased traffic, transport, and parking difficulties, affect the amenities of Little Manor Gardens, and result in the loss of other recreational facilities such as the skate park. He argued the design was both “bland and an ugly modernistic building,” unlike Cranleigh’s characterful 100-year-old village hall in the Surrey style.

The building will comprise wet and dry areas and communal/private work areas with the following facilities:

Wet Areas

616 m2 for the main swimming pool and 55-seater spectator area (with two disabled bays).

309 m2 for learner pool

381m2 for changing facilities / WCs

35m2 for pool storage

12m2 for first aid area

Dry Areas

570m2 Fitness suite with 110 stations (first floor)

205m2 for changing areas (male, female and assisted changing area) (first floor)

250m2 for Studio 1 and store (ground-floor)

147m2 for Studio 2 and store (first-floor)

98m2 for Heath Studio (ground floor)

80m2 for Spin Studio with 30 stations (first floor)

Other Areas

226m2 for café, kitchen and WCs with 50 covers/reception area

148 m2 for soft play area

54m2 for admin and managers’ office

40m2 for staff room

15m2 for chemical stores

23m2 for 3x cleaners storage rooms across the building

28m2 for two ancillary staff rooms

These spaces do not include the main lift/stairwell, with two further escape stairwells,

circulation space/corridors and plant space on the first and basement floors. Flat roof

PV solar panels will cover areas.

The proposal also includes changes to parking arrangements/landscaping and the removal of the skate park. The existing tennis courts will be used as a temporary work compound whilst construction works are ongoing

Recommendation unanimously approved

That delegated authority is granted to the Assistant Director of Planning to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a Unilateral Undertaking between the County Council and the applicant to secure a financial contribution for improvements to the walking and cycling route between the site and the Downs Link Bridleway, that REG 3 PERMISSION IS GRANTED

One councillor said that Cranleigh’s new leisure centre will not suit everyone.

What do you think?

An appeal has been dismissed following an avalanche of local opposition to a scheme that could have signalled the end of The Sayers Croft Rural Centre.

Waverley Planning officers recommended last year that a scheme for five self-build homes near the famous Sayers Croft Rural Centre in Ewhurst be approved, but councillors turned it down.

However, as the WW predicted, the determined owners of Sunnybrook on Ewhurst’s Cranleigh Road have tried, tried, and tried again and would not be deterred from building on the site pictured below. 

One green field in Ewhurst was saved once again from development.

Government inspectors have dismissed the latest appeal and refused five self-build properties, which Alfold’s Cllr Kevin Deanus described as…

“Mansions”

Below is Waverley’s decision in June 2024.

Waverley Planners throw out a Ewhurst housing scheme

WA/2024/00268 (3347221) linked to WA/2023/01924

Considering the main issue, the inspector considered whether or not the site would be suitable for the proposed development, having regard to the development plan’s spatial strategy for the supply of housing and the character and appearance of the area; and the effect of the proposed developments on the setting of the Grade II listed building ‘Combined Dining Hall and Kitchen at Sayers Croft’ (the Dining Hall).

The Inspector’s Conclusion:

 The site would be suitable for the proposed developments, given the housing supply and the area’s character and appearance.

However, the scheme would considerably diminish the verdant character and openness of the area around the Sayers Croft Dining Hall, bringing the urban form of Ewhurst further into the Dining Hall’s remaining undeveloped setting.

He said the harm to the significance of the Dining Hall would be less than substantial. The scheme’s public benefits must be weighed against this, and there is a strong presumption against allowing development that would be harmful to the setting of a Listed Building.

The benefits of self-build would be limited to the first occupier, whilst the harm would be permanent to the setting of the listed building. The small windfall site would make a valuable contribution to the housing supply, but as outline permission with individual lots, there is little guarantee that the plots would be built out quickly.

Given the harm that would arise to the setting of the Dining Hall, the proposed developments would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole.

Appeal Dismissed 

He dismissed the appeal – despite recognising that the council couldn’t demonstrate a five-year housing supply- because of the clear reason that harm would be caused to the nearby Sayers Croft Rural Centre’s Dining Hall.

The Planning Framework, which protects assets of particular importance, provides a clear reason for refusing the development. In this case, the harm to the significance of the Dining Hall does that in respect to both appeals.

The borough’s villages – particularly Milford with its train station – have just lost their vital Green Belt protection.

 

The Waverley Web considers this issue to be critical…

Are the wishes about to be realised by those villages without environmental and planning protection, villages where development is being dumped on them in heaps?

Our sources tell us that elsewhere on Facebook, one local planning geek suggests that the Government’s new “Grey Belt” policy, combined with Waverley’s lack of a 5-year housing supply figures, may have removed Milford’s existing Green Belt protection at a stroke…

Waverley’s housing land supply going down…and down.

Unlike Jeremy Hunt, WW isn’t blaming the Waverley Council for its five-year supply problem, particularly given Hunt’s hypocritical stance after being instrumental in delaying development on the airfield from the outset! He reaffirmed his position during the general election hustings when he said he lived in fear of Dunsfold ever, yes, ever, going ahead.

It has much more to do with the Government completely moving the goalposts…..

So, see Planoraks at the latest and note the clarification on towns/villages at 4.

https://www.planoraks.com/posts-1/the-grey-belt-has-arrived

Here’s the PPG Document.  It made for interesting reading

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/green-belt#assessing-green-belt-to-identify-grey-belt-land

but particularly these headings 

How should the contribution land makes to the relevant Green Belt purposes be assessed?   

When making judgements as to whether land is a grey belt, authorities should consider the contribution that assessment areas make to Green Belt purposes a, b, and d. Considerations for informing these judgements are set out below:

Purpose A – to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

This purpose relates to the sprawl of large built-up areas. Villages should not be considered large built-up areas

Purpose A – to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas

Purpose B – to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another

This purpose relates to the merging of towns, not villages.   ………..etc

(Note: There isn’t a Purpose C that WW can see.)

Purpose D – to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns 

This purpose relates to historic towns, not villages. Where no historic towns are in the plan area, it may not be necessary to provide detailed assessments against this purpose.  

WW  Do you get it?

 

While councils across the country go to the wall – Waverley Tories called for cuts in parking charges, staffing, and dumping Waverley Training Services. 

Presumably, in a bid to help pay off other councils’ debt following local government reorganisation.

But last night, the Rainbow Coalition was jubilant that it remains solvent and had produced a balanced budget for the next two years, with a 2.99% increase in Council Tax. At the same time, it increased help for vulnerable ratepayers, built more affordable homes, gave more cash to the voluntary sector, and will build a new leisure centre in Cranleigh.

Councillors of every colour were poleaxed at last night’s budget-setting council meeting when the Tory Group Leader used the hallowed halls of the council chamber as a stage to make a party political broadcast on behalf of the Conservative party.

As she name-dropped “my boss Jeremy Hunt,” Cllr Jane Austin lambasted the Labour Government’s actions over its seven-month term of office. She used much of her 15 minutes of fame to tell another good story about the achievements of the Conservative Government before introducing her group’s amendment.

While fully aware that government cuts had led to the bankruptcy of most other Surrey councils year after year, she applauded the government’s decision to move to a Unitary Authority for Surrey. She also said collaborating with Guildford (which the Tories have opposed from the outset) should result in even more savings than the administration’s budget showed.

She grandstanded while her colleagues listened incredulously to her call to reduce funding this year dramatically and next, which would effectively close down training services that had run for 40 years because, since the pandemic, it has been losing money. The WW watched the face of its Board chairman, Cllr Liz Townsend, turn puce as Austin proposed measures that would ultimately end its career of providing apprenticeships and support for thousands of young people and Waverley businesses over 40 years.

A fuming Cllr Townsend defended the organisation, saying:

Cut WTS!  An organisation that has provided training and apprenticeships for young people for decades, boosting the local economy and making a difference in their careers and families’ lives. Former Business & Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch and former chancellor  Jeremy Hunt called for more apprenticeships, which Cllr Austin would happily dismiss.

You would happily discard apprenticeships that had led to jobs with local employees, including the health service!

Through gritted teeth, Cllr Austin congratulated the Finance Team for producing a balanced budget, and her group voted for the council tax increase. An increase that would have been considerably more if she had succeeded in introducing a reduction in car parking charges, one of the council’s primary sources of revenue—£ 250,000 of which to be spent on improving payment methods with new technology, but keeping some cash machines.

To encourage people to stay longer in towns, WBC has increased charges for the first hour and reduced charges for the following three hours. WBC’s charges are the cheapest in Surrey.

Cllr Ken Reed reminded everyone that the increase was less than a latte!

Mayor John Ward warned councillors not to politicise the debate, saying, “Leave that to others in another place.”

Group leaders from Labour, Farnham Residents, Independents, and Greens all backed the recommendation to approve the Budget. They congratulated Finance Portfolio Holder Mark Merryweather, who some described “as Waverley’s Houdini” for efficiently managing the council’s finances during one of the most extended periods of government austerity. Increased voluntary organisation funding: No cuts in services, increased staffing,  particularly in planning, which is currently running at half strength at a time of extreme uncertainty on the cusp of Devolution, taking up an enormous amount of officer and councillor’s time!

Councillors called the Tory amendment.

“reckless and profoundly irresponsible.”  and voted it down by 30 votes to seven – four abstentions.

Others referred to the enormous debts of Woking, Spelthorne, Surrey County Council, Surrey Heath, and Runnymeade.

Leader Paul Follows asked what was common among these failing councils. They are all Tory-led!

The Recommendation for a 2.99% increase in Waverley’s Band D Council Tax Charge for 2025/26 with resultant increases to the other council tax bands was approved UNANIMOUSLY. Among the lowest in the country.

The village of Alfold was stunned when it received an avalanche of proposed new development, which descended on it in just one day!

One development for 80 homes – another for 400.

Even WW, hardened reporters of Alfold’s plight, are sick and tired of watching one little corner of Waverley being over-run by developers!

When is this nightmare going to stop in a villge regularly clothed in shit. We will not use the word poo, or manure, because there is no room for politeness any more?

Alfold is becoming a health hazard! Villagers are crying out for more infrastructure, not more homes.

Alfold villagers sobbing into their tea! Oh dear, what can the matter be? Alfold is turning into a lavatory

Outline application with all matters reserved except for access for a development of up to 400 dwellings to provide private and affordable homes with a community commercial facility; associated infrastructure works including vehicle cycle and pedestrian access allotments areas of open space and play provision; sustainable drainage and landscaping.  accompanied by an environmental statement.

Masterplan – H145-THA-PO1-ZZ-D-A-0008-Illustrative Masterplan.pdf

The Horsham-based Thakeham bully boys are at it again as they salivate at the prospect of concreting over more farmland on the Springbok Estate.

Its first phase of 99 homes on part of the same site was flogged off to Oriel Homes due to a ” bit of a problem with our cash flow,” its spokesman told villagers at a public consultation. A session was held in a tiny church room with more Thakeham thugs than villagers, and where it received a resounding NO – leave our village alone!

So, with another 400 planned, off Loxwood Road, a few hundred yards down the road, local farmer John Watt has jumped onto Thakeham’s bandwagon with an application for another 80. The farmland on either side of Springbok and Rosemary Lane is now looking more vulnerable every day.

We hear from another source that a developer is building on former farmer John Wards land, having received consent from Chichester Council. The development in Rosemary Lane is on land in the borough of Waverley.

Has Alfold Parish Council gone to sleep? Oops, we forgot. The Chairman of its Planning Committee Cllr Chris Britton was far too busy protecting his home overlooking Dunsfold airfield. The largest brownfield site in the borough earmarked for circa 2,800 homes that he, with his friends at POW (Protect Our Waverley) helped to block.

Is Dunsfold Garden Village Done For?

Geoff Knight 5 Glebelands Meadow wrote:

This is absurd; there is no infrastructure to support the addition of a further 800 homes. The sewers cannot support the current level of additional homes already built. There are already major problems with the electricity supply in the village, with frequent power outages and low supply voltages. I have been waiting for over two years to get my domestic supply fuse upgraded so that my all-electric home is supported. No surgery places are available in the village, and all schooling will be out of the village. (Both are in Sussex.)  It is no good making planning conditions to alleviate these problems because the developers promise to fix these problems and then just ignore any mandatory provisions anyway.

Caroline Martucci 33 Clappers Meadow

Stop and think! Look at recent issues for Alfold.

The sewage system cannot cope with the current overload. The roads cannot take the extra traffic. There are no local schools with spaces. There is no local shop. Public transport doesn’t support the village for this number of people. This village is losing its appeal and getting over-run with building – please, please reconsider!

Oh dear, what can the matter be?

Alfold is turning into a lavatory!

And here comes another shitload of housing as Wates Developments prepares to wade through the mucky brown stuff to build another 80 homes in Alfold – most of which will be unaffordable?!

And just when you thought it couldn’t get worse? Yes, folks, it gets worse. The wolves are descending to take another bite out of the countryside.

Another 400 homes to bury “Poor Old lAfold” in another blanket of shit!

https://planning360.waverley.gov.uk:4443/planning/search-applications?civica.query.FullTextSearch=Alfold#VIEW?RefType=GFPlanning&KeyNo=544726&KeyText=Subject

Thakeham Homes, Cala Homes, Vistry Homes; Oriel Homes; Bewley Homes; Q Homes; Eamonn Holmes and No Shit Sherlock Holmes!

Said one resident who wants to run for the hills…

 More housing for ALFOLD! Thakeham’s 400 proposed homes…. will go some way to filling the Gap in the 5YHLS!

Who cares if all the new residents will have to drive so they won’t be able to see a doctor for weeks or get their Kids into schools? After all, if you are taken in by the developers’ marketing Gumph, you would honestly believe that Alfold has it all. It is only 30 (odd) miles to London by car and close to numerous train stations. After all, it is perfect for commuters. N’es pas?

Emperor Oliver succeeded in ensuring that he would fight for a Unitary Authority that would swallow up all 11 borough and district councils, including ‘Your Waverley.’

And there we were thinking that only Dictators cancelled elections!

Government confirm Surrey for local government reorganisation and devolution.

Posted by SCC ⋅ February 5, 2025

Filed Under  Devolution, leader of surrey county council, local government reorganisation, minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, surrey county council, Tim Oliver

 

Today, the government confirmed that Surrey will be among the first wave of areas to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the government’s devolution agenda. 

Last month, the government invited councils across the country to consider being part of its accelerated reform programme, which aims to simplify and streamline local government.  

Angela Rayner, the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, has also confirmed to Surrey County Council’s Leader, Tim Oliver, that the government has decided to postpone Surrey’s local elections from May to 2026. 

The same applies to:

Cumbria, Cheshire and Warrington, Norfolk and Suffolk, Greater Essex, Sussex and Brighton, and Hampshire and the Solent.

 

Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, said:

“Now we’ve received confirmation that Surrey is in the first wave of local government reorganisation, we will develop a business case for reorganisation and submit a draft to government in March.

“Arrangements will also be made to postpone local elections in May so the detailed work for reorganisation and devolution can take place. The resources and time that would have been spent on elections for a soon-to-be-abolished council can now be directed to working on the best possible outcome of reorganisation for Surrey.

“I can be absolutely clear that, throughout this process, our vital work supporting residents will continue – services will be delivered and we will still be here for those who need us most – until whatever new council is fully established to take on that delivery.

“I have always been a firm believer that further devolution from Westminster to local regions and communities would be in the best interest of Surrey residents and businesses.

“Of course, any proposal will now need to be worked up in collaboration with local government and other partners across the county so that together we can really grasp this opportunity to deliver something meaningful for the future of Surrey. We’ll keep residents and staff updated every step of the way.”

 Accusations and recriminations all round

A few months ago,’ Your Waverley’ published its 5-year housing supply figure.

3.5 yrs.

As you will see from the council report below, it had a 3.5-year supply.

Then Dunsfold Airfield took off for the Planet Zonk when Trinity College, Cambridge “mothballed” the site until further notice! This reduced the 5 year supply down to :

2.8 yrs.

Is Dunsfold Garden Village Done For?   

Waverley Council’s housing land supply position revealed that the largest downfield site in the borough had been consigned to the trash bin, leaving it with a miserable 2.68 years of deliverable housing between 2024 and 2029.

Now that the latest supply figure has been published…

On the deck with

1.28  yrs

There are approximately 4,200 homes with planning consent in the borough which have not been built!

The WW wonders when someone is going to suggest that sites with an extant planning permission longer than five years should be compulsorily purchased by the Government?

‘Your Waverley’s Housing land supply figures disappointing.

There has been yet another political fracas at ‘Your Waverley.’

Did 2025 signal a new year resolution of the depleted Tory Group to work with the Rainbow Coalition in a spirit of cooperation for residents’ sakes?

Not on your Nelly.

With the Government’s devolution plans hanging like a dark cloud over every cash-strapped council in the country, isn’t it time our elected representatives worked together? Don’t we deserve better?

Obviously not.

This time, Tory Councillor Lauren Atkins (herself a developer) highlighted acrimony and accusations of an “unfair” Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) imposed on a householder, and rightly so.

A levy imposed by? Yes, you guessed folks. The previous Tory administration.

The new administration is currently reviewing a CIL charging structure in the new Local Plan.

The Waverley Liberal Democrats are calling out the Conservatives for their blatant hypocrisy and lack of foresight over (CIL) charges. They claim that the issue highlights a pattern of poor policy-making and political posturing that leaves residents paying the price for Conservative mismanagement.

The Waverley Web recalls that in October 2018, the Conservative-led Council chose not to offer discretionary CIL relief. At the time, the Lib Dem representative, Cllr Paul Follows, voiced concerns about the policy’s rigidity and potential to burden homeowners and small-scale developers unfairly.

The then-new boy on the block, as Tory councillors referred to him, ignored those warnings, so they forged ahead with the policy by majority vote.

The administration’s Tory CIL policy included provisions that imposed charges even on homeowners’ extensions. Despite clear inequity, the Conservatives implemented CIL in March 2019. WW believes it was the second highest in the country.

Said a Liberal Democrat spokesperson~:

Fast-forward to today, and we see senior Conservatives, including Jeremy Hunt, criticising their party’s decisions. Mr Hunt recently expressed concerns over “CIL injustice,” conveniently neglecting to mention that his local party adopted it without addressing its shortcomings. This political U-turn is nothing short of a desperate attempt to distance themselves from their failures.

Conservatives Must Own Their Failures

The Waverley Liberal Democrats are calling on the Conservatives to stop avoiding responsibility for their own decisions. If Jeremy Hunt and his party are truly serious about addressing “CIL injustice,” they must acknowledge their role in creating the problem and work with us to implement real solutions. Empty criticism and political U-turns will not suffice.

Residents deserve better than this cynical blame game. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to fighting for fair and equitable policies that put people first.

CIL: A Missed Opportunity for Fairness

CIL was designed to ensure that developers contribute to the infrastructure needs of the communities they build in. Yet, under the Conservatives, the policy has been implemented to penalise ordinary residents while failing to deliver its full potential. By choosing not to offer discretionary relief, the Conservatives showed a lack of empathy for homeowners seeking to make modest improvements to their properties. The preliminary report’s inclusion of homeowners’ extensions as chargeable developments should have been a red flag, but it was ignored.

The Lib Dem Vision for a Fairer Approach

The Waverley Liberal Democrats have always championed policies that balance the need for infrastructure funding with fairness for residents. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe in:

1. Discretionary CIL Relief: This program offers relief for homeowners and small-scale developers to prevent unfair charges for modest extensions and improvements.
2. Transparency and Accountability: Ensuring that CIL funds are used effectively to deliver the infrastructure improvements communities need. All funds collected are available to the public here.
3. Engaging with Residents: Listening to concerns and adapting policies to reflect the realities faced by those impacted.

If the Conservatives had adopted a more considered approach in 2018, we could have avoided the current outcry over CIL injustice. Instead, their short-sightedness has created unnecessary financial burdens and mistrust among residents.

Conservatives Must Own Their Failures

The Waverley Liberal Democrats are calling on the Conservatives to stop dodging responsibility for their own decisions. If Jeremy Hunt and his party are truly serious about addressing “CIL injustice,” they must acknowledge their role in creating the problem and work with us to implement real solutions. Empty criticism and political U-turns will not suffice.

Residents deserve better than this cynical blame game. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to fighting for fair and equitable policies that put people first.

The leaders of Surrey’s 11 borough and district councils oppose the County Council’s blatant attempt to postpone the May 1 county council elections.

The leader of Surrey County Council, Tim Oliver (Con, Weybridge), wants to postpone the elections and asks the government for Surrey to be one of the first areas to reorganise.  as proposed in the English Devolution White Paper.

The cash-strapped SCC, which could lose control if an election goes ahead, is determined to be among the first councils to reorganise. Leader Tim Oliver claims it will happen whether we like it or not.

Surrey’s borough and district councils do not oppose reorganisation but endorse it. However,  they strongly object to Cllr Oliver’s indecent haste and steamrolling tactics. 

The borough and district council leaders met with Cllr Oliver (January 7). hammering it home that they disagreed with his proposal to write to the Secretary of State, Jim McMahon MP, today, Friday, requesting postponement of the elections, warning they would make their opposition known if the letter was submitted.

Will wannabe Emperor Oliver take one blind bit of notice of his -so-called local authority colleagues? You bet he won’t.

Council leaders expressed their deep concerns about the pace of change proposed in the Government’s planned local government reorganisation under the English Devolution White Paper.

Cllr Oliver, Surrey’s Conservative leader, has raced to apply for Surrey to be in the first wave of reorganisation.

On Wednesday, the Surrey Leaders Group, including Waverley’s Leader Paul Follows, leaders of all 10 other Surrey borough and district councils and the SCC leader, met to discuss Devolution and what it would mean for Surrey’s residents.

The chair of the group, Cllr Hannah Dalton (Residents’ Association, Stoneleigh, Epsom & Ewell), said:

“All the leaders of the Surrey District & Borough Councils expressed their concerns around the pace of change being imposed by central government and that such widespread and significant change needs wider consultation with the residents, stakeholders, and businesses across the county. In addition, there was concern that the proposed change would decrease local representation for Surrey residents.

All the leaders.  Including Tory-controlled Reigate & Banstead council,  unanimously acknowledged that central government is determined to introduce sweeping changes to local government through their devolution and regional government reform plans, which will see the district and county councils merged into new unitary councils.

She said:

“The Government is saying it wants upper and lower tiers to work together, and they’re saying that that’s really important to them. So I think what we will do [if SCC requests postponement] is write to the Secretary of State and make it clear that whilst we’re supportive and appreciate the need to work together, we won’t give our support if they’re going to lay secondary legislation here in Surrey and delay county elections.

“I think the general feeling is that this county council has been in place now for three and a half years. They don’t have the mandate to do this, especially when the Labour Government doesn’t have the mandate either. Although devolution was within the Labour manifesto, the abolition of borough and district councils wasn’t, and they still need to have legislation put around it.”

 Former Waverley Cllr Brian Edmonds told the Waverley Web.

SCC councillors were elected for a 4-year term. After that period, they had no democratic mandate. The critical change necessary for the financially fatally flawed governments at national and local levels is that they act prudently within their zone of competence and recognise that democracy is a fundamental right sustained by the rule of law.

For over 30 years, Surrey Councils have not delivered a good deal from central government nor have they been governed with prudence. Billions lost by local government due to grossly negligent property speculation prove central governments’ irrational delegation to local government is often fatally flawed and sustained by the self-interest of too many politicians.

Will the county’s electorate be expected to sit back and repent at leisure?

One of the most significant Posts we have ever written

As we and many others predicted yesterday, including Waverley and many borough and district councils, Surrey did it! Its Leader Tim Oliver, has called on the Government to support his bid to be in the first tranche of devolution. If the government agrees, the county elections will be cancelled in May.

In other words, the county council, which is well on the way to going broke, wants to be in the first wave of areas chosen. 

Yes, folks, ‘Your Waverley’ could find itself along with the other borough and district councils swallowed up in a power grab as early as March. That is when Emperor Oliver wants to put a draft business case to the Government. Yes, this March! In less than two months! Faster than highways can fill a dangerous pothole.

So, a council that has failed its road and pavement users for years, failed many thousands of SEN (Special Educational Needs) children and their families and has also watched its older people denied social care. Embarking on a series of catastrophic property investment decisions like Brightwell in Farnham, it is now set to carve up the county and finally set Leader Oliver on to his Game of Thrones.

By proposing cancelling the county council elections in a few months, he has thwarted a bid by other parties, including the Liberal Democrats, to end the council’s long-held Tory dominance of Surrey.

 The Full Council and the Cabinet finally granted Tim Oliver’s long-held ambition to rule.  He has long lusted after a behemoth unitary authority with an elected Mayor.

After the decision, he said,

“Having reviewed in detail the Government’s White Paper on devolution, we will be writing to The Minister of State to outline Surrey’s ambition to participate.

We owe it to Surrey’s residents to get our county’s best devolution deal possible. I have always been an advocate of further devolution from Westminster and Whitehall to local regions and communities.”

To do that in line with government expectations, councils in Surrey will need to be reshaped and reorganised, which will hopefully deliver a simpler, more efficient and effective local government system across the county. 

At this stage we have not set out any preferred unitary Mayoral authority footprint. Any reorganisation will be examined properly over the coming months, in collaboration with partners, to deliver the very best outcome for our residents and businesses.”

If the government grants Surrey its priority programme, it will likely postpone this May election in order for the detailed work on reorganisation and devolution to take place, with elections or any new unitary council or councils to be held in 2026 and Mayoral elections in 2027.

Here’s one comment from one of our WW followers yesterday:

Fully support Waverley in opposing SCC Tim Oliver from cancelling the May elections. He and others in the SCC cabinet want to cancel the elections because they are frightened of being booted out by the residents. Any change in the reorganisation of local government MUST be for the benefit of ALL local residents. Waverley residents must not lose out either through asset stripping or through increased taxes to bail out the failing Surrey County Council and other Borough & District councils

Will this be the year we say farewell to ‘Your Waverley’ and the Waverley Web?

You may have missed us during the Christmas holiday period, or you may not have. Sometimes, a break from being bombarded with emails is most welcome, and our diminishing team took time out for a welcome rest.

However, whilst we were quiet, relaxing in sunnier climbs, there was much ado about everything. We understand that the main topic of conversation around the holiday dining tables was the ludicrous number of homes that the Government has inflicted on the borough of Waverley, 1,481 per year! This for an authority that couldn’t manage 710 p.a. and has just dumped Dunsfold! Is Dunsfold Garden Village Done For?

With Guildford’s contribution going up from 562 to 1,170, this represents some of the highest housing targets in the south east. Around 80% of Waverley is covered by Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. So, will our borough’s housing end up being decided, as it has been in recent years, by Government Inspectors? Or something worse. By a huge unitary authority?

This, plus the prospect of Waverley and all the other 11 local authorities in Surrey disappearing, caused some to choke on their turkey. Now, Emperor Tim, the leader of Surrey County Council, wants to postpone this year’s county council elections to give him more time to advance his devolution plans. 

So there you have it, folks. 2025 will likely see the end of Waverley Borough Council as we know it and of the Waverley Web. 

Grassroots democracy will disappear at the stroke of Emporer Tim’s pen. If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny, as Surrey is in heavy-duty financial dog do – along with every other council in the country that has been cash-strapped by the Conservative Government for the past 14 years!

WW wishes all its followers a Very Happy and healthy New Year because health, not wealth, matters more in the long run.

AND GONE TOMORROW?

District councils could be abolished, and more elected mayors could be introduced across England under new plans for a major redesign of local government. This would mark a scale of reorganisation beyond what Labour promised in its election manifesto and arguably the biggest shake-up of local government since the 1970s. 

A big ask, wouldn’t you say?

Nobody wants it more than  ‘Tory Tim’ Oliver, the leader of Surrey County Council! Despite Waverley Tories repeatedly winging about the efforts made by Waverley and Guildford councils to streamline services and share workforce and offices. 

The County Councils Network has welcomed the plans. Saying its members “now recognise the need to embrace the benefits” of devolution in the face of “significant financial challenges.” Its chairman, Tim Oliver, said it had become clear that in many county areas, reorganisation was needed to “unlock” more generous funding from central government and create “more financially sustainable” councils.

Quelle surprise! Cllr Oliver has lusted after a behemoth unitary authority for years. He wants to unlock more generous funding. Of course, he does! Surrey CC is in heavy-duty financial dog doo with a £17.7m 0verspend this year!

Housing Minister Andrew Norris pledged yesterday that county council elections “WILL definitely” go ahead next May.

Government Ministers have published a paper proposing to streamline services by merging areas with two tiers of local authority—smaller district and larger county councils. They are opposed to three tiers, so could parish councils be included?

Elected metro mayors will also gain new powers over planning, hoping to speed up the delivery of new housing and infrastructure.

However, the district council body warned that the plans could spark “turmoil” and argued that “mega-councils” could undermine local decision-making.

Labour proposes streamlining local government to create more powerful local mayors to unblock infrastructure and attract significant investment.

Elected mayors would then oversee areas representing two or more councils and be handed more powers over planning decisions and public transport.

Dozens of district councils, 11 in Surrey, could be abolished, prompting some to claim it would deprive people of genuinely localised decision-making.

Liberal Democrats say council budgets are “on the brink” and that more vital services would disappear if social care were not adequately funded.

It would require a series of deals nationwide emulating North Yorkshire, which now has a unitary authority after eight councils were merged last year.

The overall timetable and route to achieving this has not been confirmed, and it is not yet clear if the government will use legal powers to force councils together or if it hopes to encourage them to do so through funding arrangements.

Labour argues that the overhaul will simplify local government and reduce costs by improving service delivery.

In a speech on Monday, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner will vow to devolve the “default position of government” and give councils the powers they need to “drive growth and raise living standards”.

So there you have it, folks.

Despite only having a few hours to consider the arguments for allowing four appeals by gypsy families to remain on a site in Stovolds Hill -there were some contentious exchanges between the interested parties.

A public inquiry was set for an 8-day hearing into the Doherty family’s appeal to remain living on a site north of Lydia Park.

However, midway through the first day of proceedings, Government Inspector Richard Clegg called a halt due to his ill health. He told the assembled crowd of legal eagles, expert witnesses, appellants, and planning and environmental experts that he was adjourning the Inquiry and that the office (The Inspectorate) would contact them on a date to be set.

Four parish councils, including Alfold, Dunsfold, Bramley, and Hascombe, joined Waverley Council to prevent the development of further sites for gypsies and travellers on Stovolds Hill. Only the chairman of Alfold’s Planning Committee had his say.

An eight day public inquiry into a Dunsfold Gypsy site has started

During his statement from all four parish councils, Alfold Cllr Chris Britton was at pains to point out that it was the social cohesion of the existing traveller and gypsy families and the settlement of Stovolds Hill and Alfold and villages that were of major concern. 

However, before proceeding, he fell foul of barristers after producing a schedule of alleged recent antisocial behaviour incidents. Counsel for the Doherty family, Mr Alan Masters, asked the Inspector to rule as inadmissible—”in its entirety.” He said it was irrelevant and “totally objectionable” to point the finger at no known individuals and with no specific details, which could not be challenged.

Waverley’s barrister, Mr David Lintott, told the Inspector that any alleged ASB incidents did not form part of its case and had nothing to do with the appellants on the appeal sites, nor had he seen it before the hearing.

However,  Inspector  Richard Clegg said he would accept it and allowed Cllr Britton to proceed.

Cllr Britton said although all parish councils objected to the four appeals, he referred to the bigger picture,. All four parish councils believed that the outcome of the inquiry would be highly significant for the future of sustainable development in the locality.  This would be the start of a new site with future implications. The issues affect the whole community, both gipsies and householders. They wanted a strong and healthy community and believed the extension wouldn’t assist future social sustainability. 

“The issues we raise affect the whole community, travellers and settled alike.  Gypsy sites should not dominate the local community.”

He called for socially well-balanced communities  and social cohesion,- saying Stovolds Hill now had 198 static caravans and 47 touring caravans, clearly dominating the community,

To allow the appeal would further harm the balance. 

He claimed the situation in Stovolds Hill had deteriorated rapidly over recent months when homes on the gypsy sites had been advertised on the open market bringing an influx of occupants. Without challenge or regulatory controls, this had led to a 100% increase and unsightly overdevelopment.  He pointed at length to alleged anti-social behaviour incidents, where householders locked themselves in—and urged the Inspector to recognise the social consequences of further development.

His allegations were challenged later in the day.

Cllr Brtton produced an aerial photograph showing Hill Tops, New Acres, Lydia Park and the more recently developed legal traveller sites in relation to the settlement.

Cross-examination by Barristers followed.

To be continued…

But is it over before it’s begun?

Four parish councils, including Alfold, Dunsfold, Bramley, and Hascombe, joined Waverley Council to prevent the development of further sites for gypsies and travellers on Stovolds Hill.

Midway through the first day of proceedings, Government Inspector Richard Clegg called a halt due to his ill health.

The Waverley Notice:

He told the assembled crowd of legal eagles, expert witnesses, appellants, and planning and environmental experts that he was adjourning the Inquiry and that the office (The Inspectorate) would contact them on a date to be set.

He said he was “really sorry” but needed to be fully focused on the evidence he was about to hear.

The Inquiry promises to be a highly complicated and controversial hearing.

So, a question mark now hangs over when the Inquiry will re-convene.

The Inspector was expected to hear evidence for and against four appeals from various sources concerning land north of Lydia Park, Stovolds Hill, and Cranleigh in the parish of Bramley.

APPEAL A BY MR T DOHERTY (APP/R3650/W/22/3313865) – 1 GYPSY/ TRAVELLER PITCH APPEAL B BY MR S DOHERTY (APP/R3650/W/23/3314447) – 3 GYPSY/ TRAVELLER PITCHES APPEAL C BY MR M & MRS A DOHERTY (APP/R3650/W/23/3322400) – 1 GYPSY/ TRAVELLER PITCH APPEAL D BY MR M DOHERTY (APP/R3650/W/22/3323108) – 1 GYPSY/ TRAVELLER PITCH

Waverley is basing much of its case on the over-concentration of gypsies and travellers in a protected landscape—adjacent to existing legal sites where gypsies have lived for decades. In these sites, planning consent has been granted.

WW apologises for the poor quality of the maps and location plans.

The Inquiry heard that Waverley Council had no up-to-date Gypsy and Traveller Assessment (GTA) or a five-year supply of sites. It was also criticised for not publishing its latest gypsy site assessment, which reveals a vast under-provision, despite having been carried out.

Whilst there were early submissions from both sides—the appellant’s counsel and Waverley’s—much of the half-day proceedings centred around Alfold Parish Council’s objections to the further development north of Stovolds Hill.  

The proposed Dunsfold Garden Village, which would include approximately 2,500 new homes, separates the village of Alfold from the appeal site, which is actually in the parish of Bramley.

Travellers have occupied the appeal site for years since a High Court Judge determined they could remain there as Waverley had made no provision for the families elsewhere. He would not put them on the roadside with their complex health needs – including cystic fibrosis and Downs syndrome.

Cllr Chris Britton spoke on behalf of the community of Alfold, though he omitted to publicly tell the Inspector he was one of the 21 homeowners of the settlement of Stovolds Hill.

The thrust of his objection was the over-domination of existing gypsy and traveller sites in Stovolds Hill and the spectre of a favourable decision of the current appeal that could signal more. He argued housing three families on a former field could herald many more. He was highly critical of a previous appeal decision of sites called Yellowstone Park and Weeping Willows, which had resulted in a huge influx of people into the area following advertisements on the open market. 

Counsel for the Doherty family, Mr Alan Masters, argued that the real “elephant in the room” was Waverley Borough Council’s failure to enforce conditions on the extensions to Lydia Park, not the appeal site.

 “The real problem here and the elephant in the room has nothing to do with the planning permission on the adjacent site but with the policing of those living there by the local authority. It is fantastically over-crowded and is being rented out, because the council is not enforcing the conditions on the site, that’s the real problem here isn’t it Mr Britton. There are 211 caravans there opposed to the 64 pitches allowed  – three times as many as have been allowed.

The Inspector interjected by saying it was confusing—typically when allowing 64 pitches, it also includes a touring caravan.

Well said, Mr Masters- let’s call it an extra 100. So there’s the problem. We have roughly double the number that should be allowed. Your problem is  Waverley is not enforcing conditions. This could be the result of your claim Mr Britton of anti-social behaviour . The problem is not the six extra people the subject of this appeal but the extra  people living there by way of the council not enforcing conditions?

The council has acknowledged there is overcrowding there. They readily admit it.

When asked what steps the parish council had taken, Mr Britton said it worked closely with Waverley and frequently reported its concerns. In particular, caravans were being advertised for rental on the open market. However, he didn’t believe that issue should be resolved at the current Inquiry, saying,

“We are where we are with the current enforcement situation.” 

Said Mr Masters:

The real issue here is the lack of enforcement action by the local authority, not the extra six caravans that are seeking retrospective planning permission. That pales into insignificance compared to the 100 that shouldn’t be there!

To be continued:

The cross-examination of Mr Britton, which included matters referring to Dunsfold Park Garden Village. 

The owners of an Arts & Crafts house in Wonersh want to replace it with two dwellings.

Planning officers are recommending approval at the planning meeting to be held tonight, Wednesday.

However, you can garden grab everywhere else in ‘your Waverley’ except in Wonersh Park.

But 33 Wonersh Park residents have urged Waverley ~planners to refuse the scheme,  claiming it would change the area’s character.

WW wonders how Cllr ‘ I wannabe an MP’ Jane Austin will vote, having just purchased a house in Wonersh Park.

We heard from one of her neighbours that for someone so insistent on consultation, why didn’t she consult her neighbours before she cut down trees and erected fences to define her boundary without consulting them? Will she vote or declare an interest? Or will she become another NIMBY?

A development scheme of 320 homes  (90 affordable) has hit the Waverley buffers again.

After the exhaustive efforts of developers, including  Cala Homes, since 2019 to provide an exemplary development of much-need homes off West Street – councillors want more time to

 get it right,”

Despite the outline scheme being approved for 320 homes already in the bag, Cala will need to satisfy borough councillors that residents living in Hazel Road and Elkins Grove are unaffected despite officers being satisfied with a detailed scheme, which has taken a year to complete.

Has anyone at Waverley Towers ever considered the residents of “poor old Alfold?”  Not on your nelly. Did the planners give a toss about where car parks abutted the homes in Chilton Close or on Loxwood Road, Alfold or Horsham Road, Cranleigh and many more developments in the East? Sites which would have benefitted from vast green buffers?

One rule for Farnham – another for the rest of the borough?

So, the saga of Coxbridge goes on because councillors have agreed to defer the application. After all, Cllr Carole Cockburn and Cllr Jane Austin want Cala to return to the drawing board, knock a few houses out,re-design the road layout and drainage and reduce the density. That won’t take long – will it?

Chief Planning Officer Claire Upton Brown’s gentle warning that the application was now out of time and the developer could appeal for non-determination—with all the costs involved—fell on deaf ears. Defending appeals is now an everyday occurrence in ‘Your Waverley,’ with council taxpayers footing the bill. Never mind, perhaps all those Band H properties may dig deeper to fund another appeal.

Owners of Waverley’s largest homes could be asked to dig deeper for the common good.

The buffer gives a distance of only 45 metres! Yes, 45 metres—where, on most developments, you would be lucky to get the usual 25 metres! 

Here’s the scheme:

He said:

“We have worked with everyone to provide a safe, attractive development to set a high bar for Farnham. Every effort has been made to provide a quality gateway to Farnham Town that causes no harm to  residents now or future generations.”

BTW – two and a half-storey homes are no different to three storeys.

Bramley Parish Council is cock-a-hoop at securing a bumper payout of £512,500 from ASDA in compensation for the Bramley fuel debacle, which it plans to spend on community projects.

However, village residents—especially those who were personally impacted by the fuel leak and spent weeks unable to cook, drink, or clean their teeth with tap water, and many of whom are still struggling with Wi-Fi and internet issues—are pretty miffed! BT Open Reach claims its staff cannot risk opening ducts to inspect and repair cabling.

And who can blame them when ASDA is trying to fob them off with a mere £50 voucher that can only be spent in … you guessed it, ASDA!  

We ask, is it likely that the residents of Bramley (which is often described as ‘the Chelsea of Surrey’)  going to be shopping in ASDA?!  Why not give them a voucher for Kilfeather & Dumbrill, the upmarket butchers in the village, thus killing two birds with one stone – helping to compensate both local residents and local businesses that have been impacted by the debacle?!

As one disgruntled resident who was and continues to be affected by the fuel leaks said,

‘I don’t begrudge the kiddies getting an upgraded playground out of ASDA, but I do feel the Parish Council has let down those residents and businesses who were most impacted by the fuel leak in that it only appears to care about the optics and is blowing its trumpet about the playground on Eastwood Road and beefing up the Bramley Christmas Lights with little or no regard for the 621 households who were seriously impacted by the drinking water issues and businesses who are all having to fight their own corner with the loss adjusters.  Frankly, many of us think the £512,500 award should have been distributed amongst those households as the wider community – which wasn’t affected – is benefiting at the expense of the individuals who were!.

The parable of the leaky petrol station has been on the lips of Bramley residents for years. We’ve been writing about it here at the WW long before it was a gleam in the eye of the nationals. Not that anyone ever takes any notice of us …!

Hardly a squeak from the former MP for Guildford & Villages, Angela Richardson, throughout the years that the Bramley stink permeated the village. She was too busy having her picture taken elsewhere to bother rocking up at a local petrol station to sort out a little local crisis.

Letters from ASDA outline compensation for businesses and residents, and the parish council has publicised its delight in a local newsletter as follows:

Agreeing on funds for our community is a fantastic result for our village. While it will not take away the impact of the fuel leak, it does mean we will be able to facilitate positive outcomes across our community. The funding will go towards projects and organisations, including our new Christmas lights and marketing of the village, refurbishment of the Eastwood Road playground, our schools, the Four Villages Day Centre, and other long-overdue refurbishments and repairs in the village.

While we are delighted with the above, discussions about household payments have yet to progress. Despite strong representation from Bramley Parish Council and local community group representatives, Asda has now indicated a final amount of £50 Asda voucher to each of those 621 households impacted by the drinking water restriction.

Bramley Businesses and schools are applying under a separate scheme. Under this scheme, payouts are being processed concerning a loss adjuster, and the first payments are beginning to be made. I would also like to let you know that there are no conditions attached from Asda in accepting the above. Agreeing to the community support payment does not preclude any individual or group from taking legal action against Asda or any other party in the future.

Add Asda e-mail Bramley-Special-Update-Bramley-agree-support-package-with-Asda.Bramley-Special-Update-Bramley-agree-support-package-with-Asda

One local gipsy family with two small children moved their mobile home onto land they have owned for decades from an overcrowded site where they were born at Lydia Park.

MP Jeremy Hunt and his Bramley bag carrier, Cllr Jane Austin, are bringing in the cavalry—Waverley enforcement officers, not just the police, Borough Commander Rob Brian no less, and probably the military—to deal with one little family.

Seemingly, they have just woken up to the fact that the site near Dunsfold Airfield is part of the parish of Bramley and is home to a huge community of travellers and homeless people from all over the world.  JH is a neighbour living just down the road in Markwick Lane, where he built a new house at Mares Pond.

But where have they been for the past four years, on Planet Zonk, WW wonders? Alfold & Dunsfold residents know precisely where their borough councillor, Kevin DAnus, has been for the past eight years at Surrey County Council, where he resides in its Executive cabinet. Presumably, rocking up at Waverley is a bit of a chore when the Tories are no longer in control.

Did they know that ‘Your Waverley’ is smarting from the problem it created for itself when four years ago, it wrote to all the Lydia Park and Newacres gipsy families asking them to seek more licences for their families? Families that have lived on sites they own for 40 years and where their children were born grew up and attended local schools. Sites ‘YW’ acknowledged where there was severe overcrowding!

As one former Waverley Council member recently told the WW,

 Developers have turned planning in Waverley into the Wild West without sheriffs.

If anyone wants an example of the Wild West, a trip down Stovolds Hill will enforce that statement. Because the hundreds of “tinnies” that have sprung up over the last three years are called – wait for it…

Yellowstone Park! 

and there are only two gipsies living  there. However, there are hundreds, yes hundreds of  homeless people from all over the world residing in row upon row of tin shacks.

We have been writing about sites like this and the Bramley petrol leak for years! But Jeremy, who lives just down the road in  Hascombe, has awoken suddenly. And presumably, so has his Bramley sidekick. 

This is just one of our posts in recent years, which includes a list of just a handful of the planning applications granted. Will Dunsfold and Bramley soon boast two new villages

In fairness to Waverley Planners, they are doing their utmost to determine the gipsy need in the borough, information which is required for their new Local Plan. Waverley and every other council in the country has a statutory duty to provide sufficient sites for gipsies in their areas.

Said JH – who we respectfully suggest should get his facts right before he bows to the mutter in the local gutter.

Over the course of this weekend I have been contacted by numerous local residents and councillors from all four Parishes of Hascombe, Alfold, Bramley and Dunsfold, all deeply frustrated and upset about the damage to this field.

The field hasn’t been damaged – the two accesses have existed for decades.  Any damage has been caused by fly-tipping and car dumping by every Dug and Doris in the area.

This field has been flattened by heavy machinery, and the topsoil has been stripped and pushed to one side. A new access has been created, a hedgerow removed, and trees chopped down. Hardcore / aggregate has been laid, and so far, one structure has been placed on-site, as per the photo.

The family owns the 20-acre field. No trees have been chopped down or hedgerows removed.

This land is adjacent to and overlooked by the Surrey Hills AONB, and it is designated as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). This is an agricultural field, so the work has been undertaken without permission and in breach of planning.

Wrong A planning application has been lodged.

The field has never been used for agriculture. It was part of the old WW2 airfield, as was Lydia Park, and still has the hardstandings where the Canadians were billeted. Several thousand people live in the AGLV in tin shacks and mobile homes, and the area around Dunsfold Park has been proposed for removal from AONB.

I have urgently contacted Claire Upton-Brown, Head of Planning at Waverley, and Borough Commander Rob Brian of Surrey Waverley Beat (Surrey Police) to request an update and urgent action.
I will keep you updated, Jeremy.

Please do – but get your facts right in the future, Mr Hunt, because careless talk can cost lives.

Near Neighbours have reliably informed us that the newcomers to Yellowstone Park and Weeping Willows are causing huge problems, and the area is like a tinderbox waiting to explode.

Farnham Residents’ Cllr Jerry Hyman said Westminister City Council had only raised £300,000 from its wealthy residents, which it had used to combat homelessness. Waverley had no homeless people because 700 were currently accommodated on a site near Dunsfold!

To a man and a woman, Tory councillors were underwhelmed by the idea that residents living in 2,000  multi-million pound Band H properties would contribute. ‘Setting-up cost too high” “shouldn’t be messing around on schemes like this when there are more pressing needs.”

However, Cllr Victoria Kiehl said:

There’s a rather such a disapponting lack of ambition so far from some of the the comments we have heard, but why wouldn’t we give this a go.

https://www.surreyi.gov.uk/dataset/2gd7r/council-tax-valuation-list
Westminster has more Band H properties than the whole of Surrey.

There are times when the Waverley Web wonders if the council’s planning honchos arrived from the planet Zonk.

Take these recent decisions as an example:

An Alfold family wants to build a two-storey triple garage in a tiny garden in a former council house to accommodate their growing family. Neighbours object—why wouldn’t they?

The huge tile-hung building is then reduced to one storey and granted by the planners.

Is that what we want in Waverley? People living in sheds at the bottom of their garden rather than the fairies?  

In the meantime, just a few miles down the road in Bramley, a bloke brings in the professionals to create a ground-breaking, landscape-focused, and environmentally pioneering build.

He gets the big Waverley order of the boot as officers recommend REFUSAL.

To add insult to injury, all the neighbours of swanky Clockhouse Lane, which boasts multi-million-pound properties, support the application. In the same lane, residents once opposed reusing an old tennis court! A lengthy battle ensued.

Can you build whatever you like in ‘Poor Old Alfold” but resist any development in upmarket Bramley and Wonersh?

 WW ascertains that objections come from Snowdenham Links Road, which is well away from the site.

The scheme for two modern homes was sent to WBC in February 2023! The client uses the business’s best professionals to develop a ground-breaking, landscape-focused, and environmentally pioneering build. The two houses were to undergo the vigorous undertakings of a Para 85E (new) application championed by the Design Review Panel (DRP). WBC was asked to have their input in this process but declined as…

’they were too busy’!

Probably granting consent for huge sheds for habitable accommodation in Alfold?

The head of the DRP championed this application as a Para 85E after the client had to change many items from the first meeting.

The panel is independent and was made up of eight professionals. Annoyed at WBC’s little weight on the DRP, Mr Jonathan Brodick wrote on Waverley’s Planning Portal, ‘ the Design Review Panel is a material consideration by Para 138 of the NPPF.’ Saying…

‘In assessing applications, local planning authorities should have regard to the outcome from the processes, including any recommendations made by Design Panel Panels.’

The scheme and its surroundings can’t be viewed by anyone. It is below the adjoining field’s ridgeline towards Snowdenham Links Road. Additional planting is proposed to increase the trees and brambles and create a wild meadow, pond, etc. There are no formal gardens. Yet Surrey Wildlife Trust has asked for over £40k of survey work, causing lengthy delays (see portal (fungal surveys—what next!!)).

The application has the SUPPORT of the only people who would be affected, and that is ALL the neighbours/residents in Clock House Lane. It has objections from a ‘what’s app’ group in Snowdenham Links Road that include solid planning reasons to object, like:

That is where I walk my dag
That is where I take the kids sledging

 Clock House Lane residents have agreed legally that if permission is granted, no other building will be allowed in the future, and no access to the adjoining field will be allowed, which the residents of Snowdenham Links Road do not understand would be hugely beneficial to them.

So here’s a pioneering carbon-neutral build that is self-sufficient using technology. One house heats the energy used to cool the other and vice versa. A small solar array and ground-source heat pump are also used. Therefore, passive houses using hardly any energy.

An application by award-winning architect’s AR for something pioneering, set into its surroundings using breakthrough technology in an 8-acre oasis with a legal agreement not to build anything more in the future.

Here’s what a Clock HouseLane Neighbour said: 

I live on Clock House Lane, which provides access to the land that is the subject of the application. The applicant has engaged with all nine households on the Lane regarding the development proposal and worked positively with us to address the concerns we expressed as the residents who would be most affected by the development. 

The applicant has entered into a legally binding agreement with the residents of Clock House Lane, which, if consent is granted, will limit development of the site in perpetuity to two dwellings; ensure access is not permitted across the property to the meadow at the rear; and to resurface Clock House Lane upon completion of the development. Uncertainty over the future of this site has been ongoing for several years. I feel this proposal represents a sensible outcome for the residents of Clock House Lane, as planning consent would secure the site’s long-term future in a way that will not adversely impact the residents of Clock House Lane or Snowdenham Links Road to the rear of the site.

Does the case officer think he is more knowledgeable and qualified than the DRP on ‘design’ criteria? 

Or can you build whatever you like in ‘Poor Old Alfold” but resist any development in upmarket Bramley and Wonersh?

Haven’t the poor mortals in Waverley suffered enough from your water shortages?

Here they go again. Out comes the alert. from TW. and there are leaks all over the place in Cranleigh and across the borough and beyond. The taps have been running dry in Bramley for months.

The last time the taps ran dry.

Here’s a message from Paul Hampton – Thames Water’s healthy Rivers Community Manager!

Now there’s a great title. Can he find any healthy rivers?

“The water supply issues is impacting the areas of GU5, GU6 and RH5 areas caused by an issueat the local treatment works.”

Now, there’s a change!

“The fault has been repaired and the area is recovering – well that’s a help – and only 1,300 homes are affected now down from almost 2,000 earlier in the weekend.”

No worries folk, TW is bringing water into the area. It’s using tankers – yet again to pump water into the network and customers can collect supplies at Cranleigh Leisure Centre – well they haven’t been there for a while!

MP Jeremy Hunt has told TW customers of the problem, but he was given short shrift from Waverley Council Executive Cllr Liz Townsend.

“For about 10 years, we have experienced interruptions in the water supply in this area; we have ageing asbestos cement pipes, overwhelmed sewage infrastructure, and deteriorating water quality in our rivers. You were in government for 14 years, AND NOW you’re interested?”

Another dozey moo from Godalming has posted on social media that it’s Waverley;s fault. Well, she would wouldn’t  she because she cannot stand Waverley, and is too dumb to realise that most of the housing developments in Cranleigh and the surrounding affected areas were given planning consent by Government Appeal Inspectors while working for their Conservative Government masters. Has Ms Lancaster been swallowing Mr Hunt’s ‘blame Waverley for everything culture?’

Yesterday, we posted the very sad news that the 140 Restaurant & Department store in Cranleigh has closed.

There was no warning or closing down sale – just a sad note on the firmly shut doors. Signed by Richard and Elaine.

Phantom faces at the window
Phantom shadows on the floor
Empty chairs at empty tables
Where our friends will meet no more

Cranleigh’s last remaining department store has closed!

Posted on September 1, 2024, · on the Cranleigh Blog – which is not part of the Waverley Web.

The owners of Stocklund Square and their architects have just had planning approved for a glass and wood building that will block the existing shops from view.

We all know that Stocklund Square needs a facelift but do we need yet somewhere else to grab a coffee and a slice of cake?

Here’s an idea: how about opening up the square and making it more appealing to residents and visitors alike?

They could have a covered, open-sided seating area, reinstate a water feature, and add some raised flower beds. Have the owners or council considered having a friendship bench or two for those suffering from loneliness and mental health issues? They have been a great success in other villages and towns.

This is what Stocklund Square will look like soon.

Here’s the Waverley Web Post Cranleigh’s Stocklund Square to get a makeover.

The End of an Era for Cranleigh New Town.

One 40 – a Cranleigh business that has spanned generations of the Graham family has closed its doors, shocking residents to the core.

A store with thousands of loyal customers to its restaurant and department store sent this message this morning.

Like the Mann and Womack families, the Graham family, led by the late John Grham, dominated the town’s high street for decades. While David Manns was better known for its vast furnishing store (Now Churchill Retirement Homes) with two small shops—a dress shop and a cafe -140 was best known for its fantastic restaurant. Its breakfasts were legendary, and many a shopper dropped in for breakfast and left with a new coat or a pair of boots. It sold almost everything in the stationary line, and its Christmas gifts were a go-to during the festive season.