Tonight, Waverley’s Executive will consider whether to take a giant leap towards its ‘collaboration’ with Guildford Borough Council.

Surely, co-locating Waverley and Guildford’s staff on shared premises and holding joint executive meetings is a significant step towards changing the present ‘collaboration’ arrangements to a full merger of the two authorities. Isn’t it?

.A vision for the partnership was reported to both Guildford Borough Council and Waverley Borough Council Full Council meetings in July.

If the project to explore closer ties is approved by the Executive tonight and considered and agreed upon by the full council in February, Waverley and Guildford’s Tory Groups are expected to oppose the move.

Both Tory groups have vociferously opposed any collaboration between the two councils. 

Before it takes a huge step, both councils will receive a report with an options appraisal to explore the possibilities of a single-shared office structure in an HQ and the costs involved. In doing so.

Tonight, the Executive could agree to spend  (£100,000 of revenue and £100,000 of capital. For Guildford Borough Council, this will be funded by the flexible use of capital receipts and its Finance Recovery Reserve.

For Waverley, this will be funded from the ( invest to save reserve) to support the initial start-up of the programme and note how the money will be spent to secure officer support.

All 11 Surrey Borough and District Councils were opposed to the bid in 2020 by Surrey County Council to broker a Unitary Authority.

Bye Bye ‘ Your Waverley’ Hello ‘Surrey?’

Is Surrey’s Leaders bid for a Unitary Authority crashing and burning.

The Hon. Angie helping Boris prepare the ground for a behemoth unitary authority.

Here’s the full report for tonight’s meeting

Public reports pack 28112023 1800 Executive

Sewage seeping into Godalming High Street threatened to ruin Christmas for some businesses.

Last weekend-end business owners put up the CLOSED signs because their basements flooded with sewage.

It appears there was a blockage near the Red Lion Pub.

Thames Water was seen working in the car park behind a row of shops throughout the week, but no one had warned business owners of any potential problems.

The Works (in the old Halfords shop )  – at the opposite end of the High Street to The Pepperpot –  flooded, and it believed it would have to stay closed till after Christmas. They had just received all their deliveries – and the shop was crammed with Christmas wares.

Samantha Black, general manager for DK Guitars, said: “Thames Water did send a clean-up team quickly, but I wish they could have just said something before so that we could have put some sandbags down.”

Paul Foster arrived to work at DK Guitars on the high street to find the basement flooded with an inch of sewage.

Thames Water left a note at shops telling owners about the work at 11 pm on November 14. The affected businesses say they could not contact Thames Water until late on Saturday evening.

Here at the Waverley Web, we thought you might be interested in the amount of brownfield land available in Waverley, excluding Dunsfold Park, the largest brownfield site in the Borough.

 It isn’t a considerable amount but look for yourself on Waverley’s Brownfield Reister in the link below.

Maybe some parts of the Borough are not quite pulling their weight for housing development.

Cranleigh residents are quaking in their boots. In anticipation of having thousands more homes and thousands more cars converging on the new town. The streets there are gridlocked most of the time.  

However, Martin Bamford, the President of The Chamber of Commerce, is jubilant at the increase in footfall on the High Street. He has recently published figures showing how popular the town has become due to its street markets.

Copy of Waverley Brownfield Register 2022

You couldn’t make it up – really, you couldn’t. Not one – but now two public meetings.

Waverley Council intends to hold a public meeting on December 8, at which Thames Water officials and others will be held accountable for a major incident of water outages.

Within days of the announcement, MP Jeremy Hunt called another public meeting! But No date.

In November, homes in Waverley and Guildford were left without water again, and thousands of residents, including us here at the WW,  were left hapless, hopeless and waterless as we struggled to flush our loos and fill our kettles. We contributed to the traffic chaos that gridlocked our towns and villages in a bid to obtain bottled water supplies.

Waverley Council will host a public meeting on water outages on December 8.

As Chancellor Jeremy is on first-name terms with the head honcho of Thames Water and has her on speed dial, no doubt his public meeting will be a high-powered affair. So that he can boast,  my public meeting was better than your public meeting.

Ah, well – boys will be boys!

Its village leaders have been given the all-clear to hold a referendum on its Neighbourhood Plan. 

Time and time again, we notice that nobody can spell the name of ALFOLD! Sometimes Arfold, even Alford.

However, Andrew Ashcroft, independent examiner BA (Hons) M.A. DMS M.R.T.P.I., recently examined and passed the ALFOLD Neighbourhood Plan. He not only spelt the name correctly, but he also passed the development plan with flying colours.  

He has told Waverley Borough Council:

I have concluded that the Alfold Neighbourhood Development Plan meets all the necessary legal requirements and should proceed to a referendum.  I recommend that the referendum area should coincide with the neighbourhood area.

This is a considerable achievement for the parish council, led by Chairman Mary Brown and her colleagues, including Cllr Cris Britton, chairman of the Alfold Planning Committee.

Cllr Britton was a leader of the now-defunct organisation POW (Protect Our Waverley), which was established to stop the development of Dunsfold Airfield, which he overlooks from his nearby home. While development of the Dunsfold Garden Village has stalled, development in Alfold has continued at an alarming pace. It has more than doubled in size, with yet more planning applications in the pipeline.

The Foreward states that:

Alfold Parish Council commends this Neighbourhood Development Plan to all who live, work and visit our rural Parish situated on the southern border of the County of Surrey and under the planning jurisdiction of Waverley Borough Council.

This is an integral part of the statutory planning framework that will shape the future development of this community in the years ahead, specifically until 2032. 1.2 Every Neighbourhood Plan is unique and responds to the particular needs of the local community.

In the case of Alfold, at the time of preparation of the Plan, the situation with respect to planning and development in the Parish has been subject to recent and very radical change, which has been outside the control of the Parish. Therefore, this Plan has been prepared using the latest data to respond to the significant challenges the local community faces in trying to achieve what national policy requires – Sustainable development.

The impact of building 447 new houses in an existing small and scattered rural community, previously numbering some 449 households, cannot be overstated. This was the reality facing Alfold as the Plan was being prepared.

Evidence in the Plan demonstrates that this community has the highest level of deprivation of rural parishes in Waverley, is remote from most essential community services such as schools and health facilities, and is extremely poorly served by public transport. It is forced to be a car-dependant community, which flies in the face of all government and local authority initiatives towards creating a carbon-neutral and sustainable society.

The level of development now underway has been permitted with no material improvement in physical infrastructure (roads, schools, health centres, etc.) to date to mitigate this situation. This Plan, therefore, aims to redress the imbalance this has created. 

The challenge addressed in this Neighbourhood Plan is how to manage such change in sustainable ways and provide for positive long-term outcomes for local residents of all ages and in a wide spectrum of social and economic circumstances. Our priorities are summed up in the Vision.

Here’s the Neighbourhood Plan.ANP-Final-Version_published

Alfold-Neighbourhood-Development-Plan-Examiners-Report

After huffing & puffing over the water crisis in Waverley, perhaps Chancellor Jeremy would like to hear this  Ofwat decision.

Ofwat has been accused of a ‘meaningless gesture’ after reducing Thames Water penalty.

So how will Waverley TW customers fare after losing water – some for a week? This regulator decision doesn’t bode well  – does it?

Floods and water everywhere, and not a drop to drink in Waverley!

Water outages continue in Waverley & Guildford continues.

What about the rest of the borough?

Cllr David Beaman, chairman of Waverley’s one and only remaining planning committee – has called for a blanket ban on housing development in Farnham!

This is a slap in the face for a council that a developer has recently claimed has only a 3.4-year housing land supply, leaving it wide open for a succession of consented planning appeals.

It has also upset families who need homes. One Farnham resident claiming Cllr Beaman may as well put up the ‘You’re not welcome’ sign.’

In a recent Waverley Report, The Housing Options and Home Choice Teams continued to prevent homelessness during the summer. There were three households in temporary accommodation at the end of September 2023 compared with 8 in March 2023, which was welcomed by all; however,  homeless demand continues to be high.

There were 198 new homeless approaches this quarter compared to 214 last quarter. The team continue to see an increase in caseload year on year. Currently, two vacancies within the team impact the caseload and staff well-being.

The Homechoice Team has continued advertising and letting social housing tenancies and manages the Council’s Housing Register along with the Options Team. There is now a waiting list of 1,180 applicants, which may be even higher, as this was the June 2023 figure. Last year, there were 1,066.

Homelessness is rising in &#8216 Your Waverley.’

Who is entitled to be included in &#8216 Your Waverley’s housing register?

Mr Nick Williams of Stoke Hills told the Farnham Herald that Cllr Beman had put a stain on the Farnham Residents’ Group at Waverley. He claimed Farnham was an affluent area with few infrastructure concerns, far less than elsewhere in the country. 

He says Farnham has a part to play in addressing the shortage of affordable homes.

When a  Waverley Scrutiny Committee met last night, did the Secret Squirrels decide that councillors should bury themselves in their bunker?

 The Waverley Web has noticed that more than ever before, numerous vital subjects and decisions are held behind closed doors. The bunker mentality is becoming a concern for many, including the press and the public. 

Thankfully, the chairman, Cllr Peter Martin & Farnham Cllr Jerry Hyman, insisted that some items were not considered in private.

However, the doors were slammed on items, including Cranleigh’s proposed new recreation centre.

Here are just a few.

There were no holds barred when Cllr Michael Goodridge gave an update on his view of Waverley Borough Council, which he serves on behalf of the residents of Wonersh & Blackheath.

The oh-so-loyal member of the Tory Group of councillors, who occasionally has a nap during meetings, waded in to point out, sometimes inaccurately, the failings of the Council he was elected to serve. All is revealed in the parish newsletter.

HERE’S WHAT HE SAID:

• Waverley Borough Councillor Michael Goodridge advised that The Department for Housing and Levelling Up has confirmed Waverley is no longer under threat of being placed in Special Measures (removal of powers) as its planning performance for applications has improved just above the threshold. 

WW. Not quite accurate. The Council’s planning department has improved way beyond the threshold. 

Councillor Goodridge highlighted that problems at Waverley Borough Council continue – the planning department is the UK’s 3^rd highest Council for planning staff turnover at 47% this year, with Guildford not far behind in 5th place at 40%. Issues with staff morale stemming from the ongoing merger/collaboration with Guildford BC continue – as the joint governance risk register demonstrates. Councillor Goodridge also highlighted concerns that senior staff are spending more time with GBC than WBC.

WW. Not quite accurate.

Waverley is not alone, together with many councils in affluent areas of the country experiencing difficulties retaining and recruiting staff due to higher-than-average house prices. Since collaborating with Guildford, Waverley has shared officers and resources to save money and fend off the threat of 11 borough councils in Surrey becoming a Unitary Authority. 

• The ongoing issues at Guildford Borough Council were discussed. Guildford, BC, is the subject of an investigation following revelations of £ millions lost/overspent in the housing department, allegations of fraud and Officers being suspended. Separately, Guildford had a £10m accounting error. Together, these issues combined meant that Guildford, BC, is currently trying to avert the threat of bankruptcy.  

Partially true.

Guildford Borough Council did have an accounting error. An error which was discovered by: Yes, you guessed! Revealed by one of Waverley Borough Council’s highly experienced finance officers and Waverley’s Chief Executive Officer.

There were we dumb souls here at the Waverley Web believing that CIL payments made by developers towards community projects were sacrosanct.  

Monies ring-fenced for community projects and infrastructure improvements in the towns and villages where development occurred.

We now know that more than £1million in payments made by developers has been wiped out by Woking Borough Council’s bankruptcy!

There were we simple souls who believed that when developers were obliged to dig deep into their deep pockets to provide (CIL) Community Infrastructure Levies, the money held by councils belonged to the communities where development had taken place. Well, so far, so good; it may be so in Waverley, but not in Woking.

So, will ‘Your Waverley’ officers please tell us – How much CIL money you hold? And where is it held?

When the bean counters searched the council’s accounts, all was revealed. The cupboard was bare of CIL when the horrifying deficit of £ 1.2 billion and £11m annual budget shortfall was revealed.

So has the interim chief finance officer’s response to questions about where the money had gone opened up an actual can of worms. Just as a matter of interest, he, too, has now left the authority. 

Brendan Arnold said: “The practice nationally, as far as I’m aware, in all councils that I have been associated with is to keep the sums, as with many others, which are part of reserves and other balances held on the council;’s balance sheet, on a separate ledger account.

In short, to Mind The Gap – the massive gap in Woking’s finances, the distribution of CIL has been paused.

So all those areas of Woking that endured huge developments and who had hoped they might see infrastructure improvements now have to wait for the council’s finances to improve.

He said the £1.2m deficit was the largest charge of any revenue account of its kind in UK Local Government – and had effectively wiped out the value of any cash the council may have had.”

He stressed that the council would honour its commitments through CIL but had to deal with its crushing debt before it could do so.”

Developers earmark Knowle Lane, Cranleigh, as THE growth area for new homes.

Landscape Expert David Hugh Williams said he had considered the landscape character and visual appearance of the Appeal Site and its role in the local and broader landscape to the southwest of Cranleigh. The proposed change from agricultural land to residential uses will inevitably alter the character of the Appeal Site and result in a change at a local level, which is unavoidable. This is the case for all green field development sites and is an inevitable consequence of providing new housing beyond settlement boundaries.

However, Waverley Officers had only designated the area as having “medium” landscape value. So, based on my assessment of the Appeal Site and the development proposals, I conclude that the Appeal Site can accommodate residential development as proposed and, whilst the proposed development will have some local impacts/harm, the effects of the development on the character and visual appearance of the wider countryside will not be significant. 

To be continued…

Want to know the names of Waverley’s planning gurus? And, hear about the huge success they are NOW making of the council’s planning function…

And, according to the Planning Portfolio Holder, Cllr Liz Townsend, they are doing a damn fine job.

She told a meeting of Waverley Council that threats of Waverley’s planning function being taken by the government into ‘special measures’ had been lifted.

She said this was entirely due to Waverley’s planning team’s hard work and dedication, which she said after “a Herculean effort” had achieved and dealt with 97%, which was well above the 70% threshold for dealing with minor planning applications.

She said the government had confirmed this on the 4th of October.

Yes, you guessed, the developer that is building million-pound homes on the other side of the Alfold Petrol Station!

Planning Application WA/2021/0462 – Valid From 17/02/2021

Talk about biter, bit. Michael Dakin, The Head of Acquisitions for Q Developments Limited based in Wimbledon, has had the utter gall to object to the development next door to the former Alfold Garden Centre. On his site, he is currently building 78 homes. For interest. the first application was for 10, then 27, then 56, then 73, and now it is 78,  No development creep here, then?

Guess what Mr Dakin is objecting to? Yes, right again. He doesn’t like the distance proposed by Vistry, formerly Bovis Homes, between his piles of bricks and mortar and his fellow developer’s even bigger pile of bricks and mortar of 99 homes.

 His NIMBY moan is that his company has tried to “reach out to Vistry” to discuss boundary treatments `and adjust the distance between his piles and Vistry’s piles. and is upset there will be “no boundary treatment to the north of the Vistry site.”  

Oh dear! Why isn’t he also having a go at the BP Petrol Station that spoils the setting of a couple of his million-pound homes? After all, it has only been there for 50 years!  Surely, it’s a great USP – for the sale of his homes. Car washing facilities and petrol sales just spitting distance away on the busy A281 Horsdham/Guildford Road.

He told Waverley Planners.

“There are a number of units that sit too close to the boundary; in particular, Plot 30 sits within 10 metres of one of our houses; we have large windows on the flank wall of this house and privacy and light will be severely compromised with a house this close.”

Oh, Boo bloody Hoo! Is that the eerie silence of the cash register not ringing that we hear?

Mr Dakin is waking up to the fact that his neighbouring developer, who has 99 homes consented by yet another Government Inspector, has resisted his attempt to “negotiate for a buffer zone. ”  

He registers concern for the “ecological value of the proposed hedgerow, to preserve the amenity of his piles on Plots 16,17,18,19, 20 and 21. So they can enjoy views of the open countryside. What hypocrisy. 

Did Mr Dakin attempt to create a decent buffer zone between the properties along his boundary?  Properties that have sat alongside the former Wyevale Garden Centre for centuries? No, of course not – because the reduced value of those homes and their views of the open countryside isn’t his concern, is it?

One objector told the Government Inspector:

“There have been complaints about the felling of what the developer states are unimportant trees and land clearance trees on the site.” I also think the inspector should see the proximity of the application to the Petrol station and the fact that almost all the Affordable Housing is situated next to it.”

Chancellor Hunt has told his supporters that rumours he intends to quit before the general election are “nonsense and wildly exaggerated.”

Rumours of his departure before the next General Election are “exaggerated”, say his supporters in the SW Surrey constituency. The constituency he leaves behind to fight his old adversary, Lib Dem Paul Follows for the new constituency of Godalming & Ash, which includes Cranleigh & the eastern villages of Waverley.

Recently, there has been much mutter in the Cranleigh area about the new ownership of its most iconic hotel. The Cranley, which overlooks the famous cricket common.

Gang warfare hits the streets of Cranleigh.

In days gone by, it was visited by famous English and Australian cricketers – including the Bedser twins. The former home of the late England captain Peter May (who captained England in 41 tests)  stands proudly overlooking the cricket square on the opposite side of the common.

We will not repeat some of the claims about the hotel’s new owners and some of the shenanigans that followed the re-opening under new management. Suffice to say, the hotel was unfairly blamed for some unruly behaviour in the village.

Now, a villager has responded to claims made on our WW comments page. And in our post

Said John Dennison.

I have to say what a load of rubbish you have written about the Cranley Hotel and its effect on Cranley (sic).

I can only think you have not lived in Cranleigh for decades like myself and many others. If you had, you would know how Cranleigh is an amazing place full of amazing, good people from all walks of life!

As the licensee for the property, I’m able to correct you on your inaccuracies.

 Firstly, the new owner is a very successful and respected businessman who has lived his entire life in the Cranleigh area.

Since the Cranley has been bought and reopened, there has not been any trouble at the premises, and both the police and licencing authority will back this up.

 The trouble in the high street had nothing to do with anyone who drank at the Cranley hotel premises, and only those ignorant of the truth would report such rubbish. To suggest anything different is to suggest that people may have their own agendas.
Indeed, those involved had been drinking in The Onslow.
The Onslow is another wonderful establishment in our village.

 The local people close to the Cranley Hotel have been coming in daily and enjoying the facilities.

The rooms at The Cranley have been renovated to a high standard and are now open for bed and breakfast.
The pub is currently closed whilst options on decor are being decided.

 The parish council do not have authority on licencing. This is a Waverley Borough Council function.

The Waverley Web has removed an unsubstantiated claim against a former chairman and the clerk of Cranleigh Parish Council.

Mr Dennison continued: 

I myself am moving to another licensed venue locally and leaving two amazing ladies in charge of the Cranley Hotel who have helped make it the great new venue it is. I hope that the local community give them the support that they and the new owner deserve to have as good local people.
Very good people who’ve made massive improvements to a pub and hotel that has been run down and mismanaged for many previous years in the area. It now has a successful future to look forward to.

.

Several hundred gipsy and traveller families are accommodated in various sites across the borough of Waverley, many of whom have integrated into local communities, including Dunsfold.

Many have made their homes there, educated their children in local schools and run successful businesses for 40 years.

However, some residents believe there is now too large a concentration in just one place, and the fragile balance is being affected, particularly in Stovolds Hill, Dunsfold, which is in the parish of Bramley & Wonersh.

Following a call for sites by Waverley Planners two years ago, dozens more travelling families are setting up homes on sites adjacent to the proposed UKOG – UK Oil & Gas Exploration site near the Hascombe Hills.

Israel and Gaza – statement by the Mayor of Waverley, Councillor Penny Rivers

The mutter in the Tory gutter has it that ‘Our Jeremy’ Hunt – our lily-livered MP cannot face the possibility of a ‘Portillo’ moment, so he may not be going head-to-head with Paul Follows in a General Election.

The PM intruded on the freeze on personal income tax allowances and did not raise them in line with inflation when he was chancellor, extended by Jeremy Hunt until 027/28. Today, the Landlord Bashing Renters Reform Bill!

Jeremy Hunt – bounda
ry changes are ‘terrible for me personally’

We here at the WW always knew the MP who ditched SW Surrey for Godalming, and Ash feared Waverley’s leader in a straight fight for the constituency.  Fear of fearless Follows has often prevented Jeremy from meeting with his bete noire Waverley’s Lim Dem Leader despite his constituents’ local council needs and pressing \Waverley issues.

People before politics? Not for Our Jeremy.

So as defeat looms, rather than face Follows and risk the ignominy of returning to the back benches or, worse, facing redundancy, he will swap his ministerial trappings for some moth-eaten ermine in the Lords. Oops! Didn’t we hear that should a Labour Government be elected, it wants to dump the plumply salaried 900-plus members of the second chamber?  After all, where will that lot go when the multi-billion pound de-camp for the refurbishment of Westminster begins?

Lord & Lady Hunt will no doubt spend more time with their families in China and beyond, boosting their buy-to-let income and moving on to the public speaker circuit with the phalanx of all those other has-been politicians.

Tensions mount as Tories are being trounced in their safest citadels. Fear permeates the local Tory HQs in Guildford and Farnham.  Party workers for both MP Angela Richardson and Jeremy Hunt willing to go out onto the doorsteps are diminishing. One told the Waverley Web,

“It was no fun on the doorsteps in the May local elections. Some of us heard language from voters only fit for the docks. I don’t blame Jeremy if he jacks it in; he’s had a good innings; the writing is on the wall.”

Hunts advisor has told constituents he will stand. WW believes he will go, but if he knows he is off, should he be delivering the Autumn Budget Statement? In the wake of the recent seismic by-election results, he is expected to announce he is stepping down; the question is, when? The storm clouds have been gathering over his Hascombe home at Mares Pond for months; he can see defeat for himself and the Party on all sides and has no intact constituency. We are not even sure he knows where Ash is.  He has bombarded the areas he had hoped to represent with leaflets in his new patch around the towns and villages, but the response was less than enthusiastic.

A couple of days ago, the Lib Dems announced that Paul Follows had been selected to stand for the Godalming & Ash seat.

While cash-strapped councils across the country forge closer links to stave off bankruptcy, Waverley Tories want to jettison Guildford.

The tension in the atmosphere at Waverley Towers at Tuesday’s Full Council meeting was palpable as Tory leader Peter Martin proposed a motion to end Waverley’s links with its Guildford partner.

 Waverley’s Tory Group – led by Peter Martin, Michael Goodridge and Carole Cockburn – which has opposed the three-year council collaboration of Waverley & Guildford from the outset, now wants to end the partnership.

Light the blue touch paper and stand back! Because a fight is about to ensue!

Cllr Cockburn said the present state was not a collaboration or merger, saying she would prefer a Merger, but this hybrid helps no one. Her references to private talks held with senior officers and emotive talk of “working with the enemy”,  together with claims that Waverley officers were working for Guildford, was roundly attacked by a fuming Cllr Liz Townsend. 

Cllr Kika Mirylees said the motion could result in members of both authorities facing redundancy notices, causing a catastrophic loss of confidence.

I’ve had enough of these political shenanigans against a background of chaos in this country and beyond.

The motion was defeated by 35 votes to 9.

It wasn’t easy for the WW to choose one particular clip. But a newcomer to the council, Cllr. Michael Higgins (Lib Dem Ewhurst) summed it up here.  Other clips will be posted later.

How about some good news for Guildford – other than the other good news that Waverley Tories failed to file for divorce from ‘collaborating’ with the borough council?

Waverley’s partnership with Guildford is staying strong.

We have a contact who has the inside track on all things retail. In particular, the future of the iconic House of Fraser Building in Guildford High Street.

Ladies and gentlemen, dust off your credit cards and prepare for lift-off. 

FENWICKS IS COMING TO TOWN

According to our mole, Fenwicks is taking the first three floors of the iconic William Harvey building. Two floors will then be turned into luxury apartments. Yipee – WW wants one, two, three, maybe four!

A contractor has been appointed to remove all the fittings to provide a blank canvas for the popular retailer. It is even believed it might just open in time for Christmas.

So cheer up, folks; all is not lost. All those rumours about it coming 100% residential or becoming a hotel have been scuppered. Guildford High Street is back in business.

The end of an era.

But the council’s Tory Group has opposed the £31m project, calling it Waverley’s HS2.

There was overwhelming support from every council member for replacing Cranleigh’s existing centre, whose very existence was now in doubt. Built in the 1960s with a 50-year lifespan, it is well past its sell-by date. Over the next five years, it could cost £7 million to keep it operating safely as it pumps out 11% of Waverley’s carbon emissions.

But the ‘state of the art’ energy-efficient Passivhaus replacement, heralded by the administration as the gold standard of leisure centres, in line with Waverley’s Climate Change Agenda, was opposed by the Tory Group led by Cllr Jane Austin (Con, Bramley, Wonersh), who had a different tale to tell.

Cllr Austin believed there were cheaper energy-efficient options, for which she held details, As a regular centre user, she believed these should be investigated. She claimed that the financial information provided (in an Exempt part of the meeting closed to the press and public) didn’t stack up. She accused the administration of not providing enough information to members and insufficient consultation with centre users and the public.

This was scotched by Portfolio Holder and Cranleigh Cllr Liz Townsend, who has worked tirelessly for years to get the project underway. The Health Centre, The Co-op, the Cranleigh Market traders, and users had all been consulted. During the May elections, every councillor now representing Cranleigh had received support on residents’ doorsteps. 

Cllr Michael Goodridge (Con accused the administration of providing insufficient details on the ‘facility mix’ in the new centre. (eg. How many lanes are in the pool?)

We want to know what we are getting for our money, and so do the taxpayers.

He was slapped down by Officer Kelvin Mills, who revealed everyone had been provided with this information at the outset. Nothing had changed from the original specification. Cllr Townsend responded there would not be eight lanes, and the taxpayers would not be funding it. It would pay for itself with up to 70% energy savings from (CIL) Community Infrastructure levies imposed on developers and borrowings.

Calling for delay was unnecessary, said leader Cllr Paul Follows; every councillor had received and been provided with adequate information and could have asked for more if required. Why didn’t you, he asked?

Cllr Carole Cockburn (Con Farnham) said:

We are not coming here to nod something through, costing millions of pounds without having some certainty about the budget. 

Cllr Townsend said the recommendation before the council was based on ‘evidence’ and sound financial prudence. We can only provide you with the exact costs once we have reached the design stage, and any increase would have to be agreed upon by the council.  We cannot put the cart before the horse. Once we have something to show people, we will consult everyone in the community to delay the project, would put us, the existing centre and the council at risk. She and others warned  Cranleigh and the eastern villages could be left with nothing. No centre, no income.

Cranleigh Leisure Centre is hanging by its fingernails!

This recommendation was passed by 33 votes for and 12 Against. 

That a revised capital budget of £31,137,252, as shown in the financial viability assessment at Exempt Annexe 1, be agreed to deliver a new-build Cranleigh Leisure Centre;

1. The leisure centre is built to Passivhaus certification standards;

   III.          That authority be delegated to the Joint Director for Place, in consultation with the relevant portfolio holder, to submit a planning application in respect of the proposed new build;

1. That authority be delegated to the Joint Director for Transformation and Governance, in consultation with the relevant portfolio holder, to conduct the procurement of a contractor for the build and all related professional services, including, but not limited to, the Employers Agent and Design team;
2. That authority be delegated to the Joint Executive Head of Legal and Democratic Services to complete and execute all necessary contractual documents.

Following months of asking, pleading, and finally demanding answers – Alfold’s village leaders met with leaders of Waverley Borough Council yesterday.

Frustrated villagers wrote to Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Down, AWOL MP Angela Richardson, and various heads of planning and officials of Waverley Borough Council. This included the CEO of Waverley and Guildford, Tom Horwood.  What did they get for their trouble? Zilch!

Here’s just one of the letters that have been ignored.

Land to the rear of Hollyoak S52-2023-01486 Springbok-Thakeham Letter July 2023 (3)

And here’s why.

Has Waverley Council conspired with developers to throw Alfold to the wolves?

An application by Oriel Housing Association S52-2321486 to change a legal agreement between developers Care Ashore/Thakeham Homes, Waverley and Surrey County Council. An agreement that currently provides for a mixed development of  99 homes, of which 30% are “affordable” off Loxwood Road,   

 Not a material amendment that would require planning consent or a new planning application requiring approval, which would make it subject to public scrutiny. Residents were given seven short days to comment at the start of the Summer holidays! And Wham, bang – no doubt officer’s approval?

Here’s Oriel HA’s request in full below.

Oriel July 2023

After months of villagers writing to Waverley and the MP, telephone calls, and desperate appeals for information from the council’s head honcho down the long pecking order of senior planners, all is now revealed. The developers have conspired with ‘Your Waverley’ ‘in a let’s stuff Alfold ploy’ by changing the 106 legal agreement to provide 99 market and 30% affordable homes to…  

99 – 100% rented and shared ownership homes. Off Loxwood Road.

Together,  with a scheme for another 66 in the pipeline, the developers publicly voiced ambition for 425. Landowner  Seaman’s Union Charity  ‘Care Ashore’ once told villagers 

“We are the friends of Alfold.”

Who Dares Wins

The winner? Why ‘Your Waverley’, of course, because with one swipe of the pen, its planning officers, who now have a stranglehold on Waverley’s  Planning system, can slash the long waiting list for its mates in the housing dept.

So, has a council that has consistently refused to allow affordable homes to be grouped and wanted them distributed to prevent discrimination between private and social housing occupiers now changed course? 

A road that one former Tory councillor said Waverley would never travel:

  Waverley Council will never build ghettoes, he said.

The Waverley Web may not be Mystic Meg. However, we predicted that when the developers lied in shovel loads to a Government Planning Inspector, he would swallow them  – hook, line and sinker.

With this space

After years of behind-the-scenes talks with Waverley Planners, Alfold’s Wildwood Golf Course owners have cut and run.

After years of trashing the golf course, its environment and the wildlife, flora and fauna that once flourished on the Surrey/Sussex border in Alfold, the owners – Pekers – have put the place up for sale. Presumably, its plans for an Eco-Retirement Village went into a bunker.

This is what it looked like when Phill & Louise Harrison ran the club for the previous owner,  Edmund O’Reilly Hyland. When the Wildwood Golf & Country Club was something of which Alfold was proud. It held golf tournaments, attracting top professional golfers, had fundraising events, and its Christmas and New Year events were legendary. 

A new era for Wildwood.

The latest twist in the fate of the beleaguered club is a far cry from this headline… on the WW.

Wildwood Golf Club is set to become one of the principal golfing destinations in England.

A group of  “high net worth individuals” is putting its weight behind the club to build a multi-million-pound Hotel, improved golf course, 39 golf lodges and more.

The development plans for Wildwood Golf & Country Club came only days after plans for 1,800 homes in nearby Dunsfold Airfield were announced.

Now, Dunsfold and Wildwood have yet to be developed! 

What’s going on in Alfold’s Wild ‘West’ wood?

Could a new village be coming to Alfold sooner than villagers think?

Things have gone very quiet in recent months except for a variety of security people, but now the golf course, with consent for a hotel and Spa, is being visited by prospective purchasers.  

The former prestigious clubhouse that staged numerous golf tournaments and a healthy membership is now a shadow of its former self. Former members told the Waverley Web they doubt the course designed by Ronan Rafferty could ever be played on again – without massive investment. The scene below has been repeated across the site. The present owners planned to create a new village within a good drive from two nearby developments, at Alfold Garden Centre and land adjacent to the Alfold Petrol Station.

Now, the clubhouse is being smartened up, presumably to attract buyers. 

Here’s the advert in a recent edition of Golf News.

‘ Your Waverley’ is doing everything in its power to work with the owners of the Haslemere sports venue to ensure it continues.

Following the delivery of a petition of 2,600 signatures to a recent council meeting to “Protect Th Edge Leisure Centre in Haslemere’ its Overview & Scrutiny committee had the opportunity to hear a plea to keep it open.

Residents, clubs and disabled users have bombarded Waverley councillors with letters, telephone calls and e-mails objecting to its sudden closure.

 Waverley Council has terminated the leisure centre lease and passed it to the owners of the building, Surrey Council. Surrey has confirmed the building will continue to be used by the Woolmer Hill School school but will be unavailable for community use after the end of June.

Whilst discussions about re-opening for community use at a later stage are ongoing between the two authorities, there is no certainty that these will come to a positive conclusion.

Officers told the committee that local news has revealed the strength of concerns about the future, and residents believe if enough people sign this petition, the council will have to act to protect this vital service. 

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee considered the representation in the video below from the petitioner. 

Mr

Resident Mr Grimes is speaking on behalf of Sports Haslemere and other users of The Edge.

Here’s a clip of how hard officers are working to ensure The Edge has a future.

Based on the evidence given, it made a recommendation to the Executive, who will then decide on the petition.

Will Haslemere’s Red Court developers attempt to dupe ‘Your Waverley’ Planners in a few weeks? A plan so cunning Baldrick would be proud of them.

If you live in Waverley and care about Haslemere, then now is the time to stand up and be counted on to stop its further destruction.

Come on, Waverley residents – get behind the people of Haslemere. Tell the Government to keep its hands off our precious protected countryside. Tell it to force the owners of the largest brownfield site in the borough with consent to build thousands of homes on Dunsfold Airfield to get on with the job or hand it over to someone who can.

Is Dunsfold Garden Village the elephant in Waverley &’s room?

Here’s what one Haslemere  resident said:

As residents face yet another battle to protect Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty land from development at a time of a climate change crisis and biodiversity collapse, it seems almost dystopian that just over the hills, the vast brownfield site of Dunsfold Aerodrome still sits vacant, as it has for over 20 years.   

Plans for a new garden town development of over 2500 homes at Dunsfold were blocked repeatedly by our MPs Jeremy Hunt and former MP Anne Milton, leaving Waverley’s towns, villages and countryside exposed to any developer with the funds to buy up countryside and ‘have a go’ at getting planning permission through repeated appeals. 

The Waverley Web believe that preserving our countryside is in the public interest. Therefore, another Planning Inspector must hear the public’s voice loud and clear! It’s time to shout from the Surrey Hilltops that enough is enough!  Tell the Government servant at the forthcoming appeal that he must keep his sticky mitts off our precious countryside.

Property developer Redwood SW Ltd has under its belt a successful appeal to build 50 homes on the site. But like so many other developers, e.g. Thakeham Homes, has cashed in and flogged off the site.   Elivia Homes rocks up to build Phase 2, 111 or more new homes with a bung to the locals for a new Scouts HQ.  

Waverley’s planners rejected this under their delegated powers as a definite NO! But since when has a Government Inspector listened to where our planning experts believe is the right place to build?

The unique setting in the spectacular Surrey Hills attracted many to live there. One resident was so passionate about the countryside he co-founded the National Trust in 1895. Robert Hunter’s mission was to protect the special landscape for future generations.

WW wonders if the sound we can hear is Robert spinning in his grave.

Redwood shows Haslemere residents how to destroy an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in three easy lessons.

Here are some photos- the site/Midhurst Road tree-lined avenue on sunken lane approach into Haslemere, which will be largely felled for new road junction and access/ aerial shot of site- taken before developer successfully appealed WBC rejection and is currently building 50 homes- mass tree removal has already occurred at the site. 

Here at the Waverley Web, we feel compelled to let our readers expose their true feelings about the towns and villages where they live.

Here’s another comment.

Here’s what Bunty said

Sometime yesterday, social media reported an elderly lady being punched in Sainsbury’s whilst trying to stop a shoplifter, a 4×4 speeding onto the High Street and nearly causing a collision, graffiti appearing on the Village Hall and a police officer walking down the High Street. The latter is the only event that caused surprise to villagers as it is a ‘one in a blue moon’ occurrence.

Recently, we wrote a post on the gang warfare occurring in the town that was once so proud of being England’s largest village.  Our stat counter went off the scale as readers from all over the borough read it and commented.

Gang warfare hits the streets of Cranleigh.

Here’s one resident’s jaded view of the once lovely village of Cranleigh which has grown into Cranleigh New Town. A place that Chamber of Trade honcho Martin ‘The Cranleigh Chat Controller’ Bamford wants to see more and more housing development and more footfall hitting its streets.

Here’s what long-time resident and businessman Noel Boyd thinks about the state of Cranleigh today.

Recently, Farnham Councillor Carole Cockburn waded in during a Waverley meeting to make claims about the updating of the Local Plan. Claims that have been disputed repeatedly by others.

But this time, she was slapped down by a council planning officer, determined to set the record straight. The eagle eye of Clr Liz Townsend, the council’s Portfolio Holder for Planning, was watching the proceedings.

Chairing the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Cllr Cockburn repeated claims she had made many times that others believe do damage to Waverley’s existing crucial Local Plan Part 1 and are music to the ears of wannabe developers.

She has been arguing for months that Waverley’s blueprint for planning, which is now five years old and has to be updated, only needs a light touch and shouldn’t be re-written. This is despite advice from Government agencies and Barristers to the contrary.

Waverley Planning Officer Andrew Longley was updating members when he outlined progress on the scope of the Plan, consultations that would and are being held with stakeholders – and the “ambitious timescale” for producing the new document. The Full Council received the report yesterday October 3rd.

There would also be a full members’ briefing when key decisions must be made. Once a Draft LP1 was produced, scrutiny by members would follow, and parish and town councils consulted, followed by public consultation. 

However, Cllr Cockburn was “not happy!” There would be huge consequences for the borough’s Neighbourhood Planning Groups, effectively forcing them to throw out existing Neighbourhood Plans and find new sites.

She told the meeting she was attending yet another Farnham Planning Appeal on October 12th, following two recent successful appeals. The council would have to defend the same old arguments.

“We have no five-year housing supply. We have no up-to-date housing figures no up-to-date documents, and everything will go forward on the tilted balance very difficult to defend. We have the rug completely pulled from under us.”

She said she objected to adding another 11  years to the existing Plan.

This takes the Local Plan to 2043; at that rate, Neighbourhood planning groups like Farnham’s will have to find sites for thousands, and I mean absolutely thousands of homes if they don’t, then Waverley Council will have to find them.

How quickly can you complete this and inform the neighbourhood plan teams what they need?

Here’s the response from Planning Officer Andrew Longley, which puts the record straight when he tells the chairman.

“You are completely wrong.”

The government’s new National Planning Policy Framework, which provides councils with the information on which to base their Local Plans, was due to have been published in April 2023. Authorities all over the country are still waiting!

The estimated build of a new Leisure centre in 2019 was £10m – then £20m in 2022. Two weeks ago, it was £30m, and last week, the figure quoted by a Waverley officer was £31m.

To be more precise.  £31,137,252

Now, a question mark among some councillors hangs over the viability and desirability of providing a state-of-the-art, low-carbon Passivhaus building – one of the first in the country.

Q Will spiralling costs put paid to a long-held dream to replace the old and tired leisure centre?

At a meeting of the Executive tonight, Tuesday, Cranleigh  Cllr Liz Townsend, the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development, will recommend the following to the Council:

That a revised capital budget of £31,137,252, as shown in the financial viability assessment at Exempt Annexe 1, be allocated to deliver a new build Cranleigh Leisure Centre; II.

The leisure centre is built to Passivhaus certification standards, and the Joint Director for Transformation and Governance will be given authority to appoint all professional services, including, but not limited to, the Employers Agent, Design team and build contractor, and to complete and execute all required contractual documentation. Most details will be provided when the press and public are excluded.

Cranleigh Leisure Centre is going up 8211; the costs, that is!

Council officer Kelvin Mills explained that the Council had been working with the architects GT3 and quantity surveyors and that a full report would go to the Executive and Council shortly. 

Cllr George Hesse said:

“I know how much the people of Cranleigh really want and need a new sports and leisure centre, but I understand that the cost estimate what was to have cost £10m then £20m is now costing around the £30m mark.

With material costs generally going up, at what point do we decide that enough is enough that it has exceeded the point it can be afforded? At exactly what point can we pull back from it?  We all know that projects have a tendency to overspend with cost inflation. We are talking about many millions of pounds here. Will there be a pont where we should pull back and completely re-assess. Money is not unlimited.”

Officer Kelvin Mills said:

Chairman Cllr Carole Cockburn said the Council would need “a heck of a lot more information about the project.” before making a decision.

She said: “It would be lovely to have a state-of-the-art facility in Cranleigh, but we have to be aware of how much money we have.  We are talking about eye-watering sums of money here.”

Cllr Hesse asked if and when the build went out to tender, would it be for  a “fixed price contract?”

Social media is awash with tales of the unexpected – as vicious fights break out on Cranleigh’s high street.

At one point last Friday, people were warned to stay away from Cranleigh, and those with young families say they will avoid the annual bonfire celebrations this year!

Since the official opening of the Cranley Hotel, now called Cranley on The Common, major disturbances have occurred. Though some say townsfolk are overreacting. Others have contacted the WW, saying many of the troubles had nothing to do with patrons or customers of the pub, some of whom had been turned away.

Residents living around Cranleigh Cricket Common – many of whom occupy multi-million-pound homes are furious that their everyday peace and quiet has been interrupted. The High Street has, in recent years, become the least quiet part of the area that has sprung up from the village that gave birth to Cranleigh New Town. Now, ambulances, fire engines and two-tone police sirens are regular occurrences.

The Waverley Web understands from the locals that ‘The Cranley, ‘ as it is known, has had a chequered history in recent years. Now, under new ownership and refurbishment, it had been hoped that it would enter a new era. The new owners are believed to have done their utmost to deal with any problems. Most were entirely outside their control and occurred in various parts of the Town. 

They intend to completely renovate the shabby and worn interior and return the venue to its glory days during the 60s and ’70s. 

Sadly, it appears not to be the case.

Here’s a comment from Bunty on our comments page.

The private security firm debate on social media is an interesting one. It seems that those who produced a laughable ‘Cranleigh is Dying’ for lack of new residents promo video some years back to push their huge housing development through now want private security to deal with the impact of a large number of ‘outsiders’ coming to the village where there is nothing for young people to do.

Where are the local Councillors and MP to lobby the real police to get a police station re-established in Cranleigh? 100% sure the private-police promoters want public money to protect their newly established park from anti-social behaviour.

A Dunsfold resident who preferred to remain anonymous said: “What did everyone expect? Waverley Bough Council has been dropping licences into the hands of travellers from far and wide. Many of whom have no connection with the area of Dunsfold or Cranleigh. There are hundreds of families setting up homes here. “

Now Cranleigh’s Chat Controller, self-appointed Town Manager (pictured above), has stepped in to give a measured response to the rising number of anti-social incidents in CranleighNew Town, whose growth he has so vociferously supported over many years.

As Chairman of Cranleigh Chamber of Trade & Commerce and Trustee of Knowle Park, he has long called for more footfall in Cranleigh, supporting and campaigning for more major new housing developments that have brought in residents from all over the country and abroad.

Now, Cranleigh residents are calling for private security firms to be hired at the public expense.

There is now an incredibly long waiting list for homes in ‘Your Waverley.’

There is now a waiting list of 1,180 applicants, which may be even higher, as this was the June 2023 figure. Last year, there were 1,066.

The government will expand permitted development (PD) rights to make it easier to create new housing and for “homeowners to build upwards and outwards” and is considering whether design codes should apply to some of the rights, the levelling down secretary and the prime minister have announced. 

According to a statement issued by the Department for Levelling-up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) on Sunday night, the government will introduce “new flexibilities” to allow “shops, takeaways, and betting shops” to be converted into homes to help “rejuvenate the high street”.

WW. How exactly does that help rejuvenate the high street when there are no shops, takeaways, betting shops etc, God only knows!

 It will also “cut red tape” to “enable barns conversions and the repurposing of agricultural buildings and disused warehouses”.

 Further “freedoms” to “extend homes, convert lofts and renovate new buildings will help to convert existing properties into new accommodation”. At the same time, a review into the extension of PD rights “will make it easier for homeowners to build upwards and outwards – with new extensions and loft conversions – whilst ensuring neighbours’ interests are protected”.

WW – “How exactly will the Government protect neighbours’ interests?:

The government will also “launch a consultation on new permitted development rights, to provide more certainty over some types of development, and how design codes might apply to certain rights to protect local character and give developers greater confidence. 

New and amended PD rights, it went on to say, “would make it easier to convert larger department stores, space above shops and office space” and would involve “changes to support farm diversification and development, to allow businesses to extend and more outdoor markets to be held”. 

The consultation sets out various changes to existing PD rights and proposes new ones.

Another consultation will take place in the autumn outlining measures on “how to support existing homeowners better to extend their homes.”

It claims: “Densification, done the right way, will transform the opportunities available to people across the country – our inner cities have much lower population densities than comparable Western countries, impacting our productivity.”

The government will “continue to ensure that local removal of permitted development rights through Article 4 Directions will only be agreed where there is evidence of wholly unacceptable impacts”, it said.

But Shaun Davies, chair of the Local Government Association, said in a statement:

“There is no doubt that we need more homes as well as to reinvigorate our high streets and town centres. However, premises such as offices, barns, and shops are not always suitable for housing.

“Further expanding permitted development rights risks creating poor quality residential environments that negatively impact people’s health and wellbeing, as well as a lack of affordable housing or suitable infrastructure. 

“It is disappointing that the government has ignored its own commissioned research that concluded that homes converted through a planning application process deliver higher quality homes than those converted via permitted development rights.”

He maintains only homes delivered through the planning system 

“will ensure a mix of high-quality, affordable housing that meets the needs of local communities while also giving those communities the opportunity to shape and define the area they live in.”

Victoria Du Croz, head of planning and partner at law firm Forsters, said new PD rights are “unlikely to boost housing numbers to the levels that are needed”, and housing is needed “alongside job creation, space for warehousing and retail and leisure strategy.

DLUHC is already consulting on its plans to introduce two new PD rights to convert persistently vacant high street properties.

Meanwhile, the new’ class MA’ PD right, effective August 2021, allows the conversion of commercial, business, and service uses to residential without needing a full planning application. 

For months, wannabe developers have been knocking on residents’ doors in Cranleigh. 

As the great building bonanza continues and the once rural village has morphed into Cranleigh New Town, determined developer continue their search for sites.

The latest verdant countryside is the land behind Cranleigh Mead and Seltops Close in the Mead Road area of Cranleigh.

The owner of the 140 store has also appealed to the Government to build 160 homes in Knowle Lane.

Developers earmark Knowle Lane, Cranleigh, as THE growth area for new homes.

The residents are regularly approached with inflated offers to buy their properties. We understand from the locals living there that most have refused, but some living in Seltops Close are sorely tempted to sell up and run.

One resident told the Waverley Web recently that offers for modest homes are so inflated that they are becoming too good to refuse, and the deals on the table may soon be taken.

As concern grows that yet another new housing estate may be on the cards, so does the traffic. At certain times of the day, Cranleigh remains gridlocked. The narrow one-way bridges on the entrance roads into Cranleigh have made traffic congestion worse.

Antony Garstone has published his fears on the local community board, saying:

Our problem is that if this does go through and houses are built, it will completely change the character of not only Seltops Close but also New Park Road and the surrounding roads as feeders to this new estate.

Seltops Close will no longer be a quiet cul-de-sac, but become a thoroughfare feeding all the houses on the new estate allowing access to the village. I know that these things take time to happen, but once started I feel we will have little chance of stopping it. Seltops does not want this to happen. Cranleigh can’t cope with any more development. Just look at the state of everything. When Horsham Road was shut it became a nightmare with 8-wheelers and buses’ using New Park Road.

Another Cranleigh resident wrote:

I wonder how all those people who objected to Dunsfold Airfield being developed – and that includescour new MP Jeremy Hunt who has recenly jumped ship from over-developed Farnham. 

He and former MP Anne Milton and Protect Our Waveley delayed the development by years, which has now left Waverley without a five year housing land supply, and Cranleigh and the eastern villages losing their treasured countryside and their character.”

This is an interesting change that you may have missed.  

At a recent Waverley Borough Council Council meeting, amendments to the Constitution for the one and only Waverley Borough Council planning Committees were agreed upon.

 So now a minor application needs ten objections (previously, it was five objections before a planning application could be called in for scrutiny by the councillors you elected at the May polls.

For major planning applications, 20 objections are needed. Formerly, it was just ten.

Tory Councillor Jane Austin told her Bramley constituents that Councillors could call contentious applications to the committee without the requisite number of objections if sufficient planning grounds exist. So the message here is if you cannot drum up enough objections among your neighbours, then call on your local councillor and get them to call it in for further scrutiny before it receives the GRANTED stamp.

Plans to produce a new Local Plan Part 1  running from 2023-2043 were signed off by the  Council. This will take some considerable years, with an estimated minimum completion date of 2028.

So how about asking your Whitehall mate to give them more money, Guvnor Gove?

Is ‘Our Waverley’ becoming a punching bag for  Secretary of State Michael Gove?

The Housing Secretary of State has written to Waverley Borough Council chastising it after the housing ombudsman decreed it had committed…

“a severe administration failing.”

It has now apologised for the “unreasonable delay” in responding to an application by the father of a disabled son to make adaptations to his council home. 

Despite Waverley receiving more calls for disabled facilities than it can fund!

At a June council meeting, councillors were told by officers they were receiving increasing referrals from private and hospital OTs trying to arrange work, including disabled adaptions to enable clients to get back home from hospital. You can read it in the link below.

Waverley receives more calls for disabled facilities than it can fund

The family was left waiting for 18 months for the necessary work, and in the end, the father did the work himself.

In a blistering letter to Tom Horwood, the  CEO of Waverley & Guildford Councils, Mr Gove said:

“You failed to take account of how important the work was to this family. This is deeply disappointing.”

I have been clear that social housing residents must be able to put their trust in their landlords to provide decent homes and deal with complaints effectively”

I expect the changes you are implementing to make a significant difference in the service you deliver to your residents. I will be taking a personal interest in how your organisation continues to deliver its responsibilities.

Waverley has said it is taking steps to improve the application process and accepted that its communication could have been improved.

It said it had learned valuable lessons from this case and, as requested by the ombudsman, was in the process of carrying out a comprehensive review of its policies and procedures.

As part of this review, the council is conducting interviews with residents to gather feedback on its policy.

Here is a post we made In June year.

Waverley receives more calls for disabled facilities than it can fund

We have it on excellent authority that five, yes folks, five planning officers left Waverley Towers on just one day!

Here’s a comment we received from Alfold resident Denise Wordsworth.

It simply beggars belief that we now have only One Planning committee, and they are all schlepping to Godalming to discuss ONE small Application, which may be of significance in Witley – But REALLY??

We have many large outstanding applications that have not come to the committee. We have developers here in Alfold who are not even starting the ones that have been approved as they are waiting for their additional houses to be approved.

As of this morning – I haven’t even been able to look at applications on the Planning Portal as it simply says, “An error occurred getting the documents for this item”, regardless of which application you look at!

Planning officers seem to be departing from Waverley at breakneck speed at the moment… Somebody needs to get a grip on this and fast.

 Touch wood that the ‘one  and only’ objector finds –  it was worth it.

WA/2023/00789 – LAND AT TOUCHWOOD PETWORTH ROAD WITLEY GODALMING GU8 5QW 

Erection Of Fence And Gate Together With Alterations To Driveway

Membership of the Planning Committee – All are paid an Attendance Allowance for being there plus their travelling expenses. Then, the planning officers attend for just ONE planning application.

Cllr David Beaman (Chair) Cllr Penny Rivers (Vice Chair) Cllr Jane Austin Cllr Carole Cockburn Cllr Janet Crowe Cllr Jacquie Keen Cllr Andrew Laughton Cllr Alan Morrison Cllr John Robini Cllr Julian Spence Cllr Richard Steijger Cllr Phoebe Sullivan Cllr John Ward Cllr Terry Weldon Cllr Graham White

The application has been brought to the Planning Committee at the request of the local Ward Member (Councillor Maxine Gale) on behalf of Witley Parish Council to allow the committee to debate the impact on visual amenities and common land.

No letters of objection were received except one from the parish council.

 The application proposes the erection of a front boundary post, rail fence, and gate, together with alterations to the driveway.

Officers consider the proposal acceptable about design. Furthermore, the impact on common land would be dealt with separately under an application to the Secretary of State under the Commons Act 2006.

So, we aren’t usually the ones that handle it, guv. Here’s what the planning officers say:

Any decision to grant planning permission would not predetermine a decision under that Act. Therefore, the planning balance assessment concludes that the proposal is in accordance with the Development Plan. As such, planning permission is recommended for approval.

The application site is located to the east of Petworth Road in Witley. A two-storey dwelling with a half-hipped roof and inset-pitched dormers. Ribbon development in a semi-rural location along the east of Petworth Road with a mix of single-storey and two-storey house types of differing design.

Here’s what the parish council has to say:

The Parish Council asked for the application to be called into committee rather than agreed upon by delegated authority because it strongly objects and wants the fence and gate enclosing common land removed.

It objects to the accuracy of the red line (on the drawings) as it includes common land not owned by the applicant. An application to the Secretary of State (Planning Inspectorate) should be required to enclose common land. It also contravenes the Witley Neighbourhood Plan.

The parish believes the proposals or design should reinforce or enhance the established village character of streets, greens and other spaces. Asking: Does the proposed car parking compromise the amenity of adjoining properties? Local Green Spaces, Views and Character Development adjoining public open spaces and important gaps should enhance these spaces’ character by providing a positive interface.

In addition, the Parish Council had previously been advised by SCC Highways regarding the inclusion of the land in the Witley Neighbourhood Plan as Local Green Space, that it needed to be left for possible improvements such as pavements and cycleways for integrated transport links.

The development does not comply with policy DM4 (Quality Places through Design) of LPP2. By proposing to enclose an area of common land, the proposal does not respond to this location’s local context and historic character, contrary to DM4 (b). ii.

Furthermore, the boundary intrudes onto the public realm. As well as being in the wrong position, the proposed boundary treatment does not respond positively to the local context around and within the site, i.e. it ‘sticks out like a sore thumb’.

The Waverley Web team recently went incognito on its staff outing around the Blightwells complex in Farnham. Sadly, we couldn’t actually smell the coffee.

BTW – When is the place going to open officially? This year, next year, sometime never?

Well, everyone else is doing it – why not us?

The Waverley Web team has no conscience about hitting the beach. According to the taxpayer’s watchdog – everyone’s doing it.

This is ‘Your Waverley’s spin on WFH in our borough; it is called…

The ‘Where Work Happens’ project

The council says it continues to provide a more flexible way of office working, taking advantage of the technology that we have used throughout the pandemic but providing a better balance for customers and our workforce,

C ouncil staff are there to deliver local services to local taxpayers. It’s hard to imagine that laying on a sun lounger with a laptop helps them do a better job. With council tax on the rise and budgets being squeezed, ratepayers expect these costa-del council officials to get back behind their desks and start delivering for residents.

The chancellor wants to roll the dice using council pension funds’ assets.

 Has anyone told him about  Surrey County Council’s pension fund used to build Blightwells in Farnham?

If you were a casting director searching for the perfect actor to fill the role of a gambler, Jeremy Hunt would probably not be the first person who comes to mind.

A straight-laced bank manager by all means, but hardly the sharp-suited, trilby-donning Marlon Brando character in Guys and Dolls, singing Luck be a Lady Tonight as he rolls the dice. Indeed, the whole point of Jeremy Hunt’s chancellorship is that he can be trusted with the public finances, or can he?

 While Brando’s character stands only to lose $1,000 a piece to his fellow gamblers in the classic Hollywood musical, in real life, our Jeremy is potentially asking council pension funds to place a multi-billion pound bet using money designed to help pay the pensions of some of the lowest paid workers in the public sectors.

Some councils, including ‘Your Surrey’, have already used the staff pension fund. Think back to the 57m it invested in the Blightwells scheme in Farnham. Twenty-three years after it was mooted, it still hasn’t opened, and the developerCrest Nicholson is reaching out across the country, appealing for businesses to set up shop there.

Let us explain.

 Mr Hunt has unveiled what the Treasury is calling his Mansion House reforms. It is a package of pension changes he said could unlock an extra £75bn for high-growth businesses.

As part of this, the government wants to see the Local Government Pension Scheme “funds and pools doubling their current allocation into private equity, with a total ambition of 10% investment allocation, as part of a diversified but ambitious portfolio”.

The idea is that the LGPS will invest more of its money in “high-growth, innovative technology companies,” whose success will boost the UK economy and increase returns for the pension funds. Such investments offer high potential returns but also high risks.

The Treasury press release about the Mansion House reforms included 17 supportive quotes. None came from LGPS practitioners.

The reason may be that council pension funds exist for one reason: to pay the pensions of their 6.4 million members. Their investment decisions should be guided by their judgement about the best way to achieve this, rather than diktats from the central government, whatever their motives.

Indeed, the recent triennial valuation showed that many council pension funds are well funded, and some now want to reduce the amount of risk in their portfolio rather than increase it. For example, East Sussex Pension Fund is considering reducing its private equity exposure, the opposite of what Jeremy Hunt is urging.

It was an issue that came up frequently at last week’s LGC Pension Insight Symposium in Stratford upon Avon.

One poll asked delegates about the government’s aim for investing 10% of LGPS assets in private equity. A complete 85% agreed,

“this is money to pay small amounts of pension to six million beneficiaries.BACK OFF, GOVERNMENT”.

In contrast, only 15% believed “the government sees the LGPS as a ready cash pile, and it is reasonable to want to make best use of it for the UK”.

Phil Triggs, tri-borough director of Treasury and pensions at Westminster City Council, drew an analogy with the start of austerity in 2010 when councils were encouraged to be more commercial as their government funding was slashed and borrowed to invest in solar farms and town centre regeneration, among other things.

Fast-forward 13 years, and it has not always worked out for the best, as the residents of  Woking could attest. As Mr Triggs said, the government

“doesn’t have a good track record on this, encouraging either local authorities or their pension funds down a particular route”.

And some in the LGPS certainly see a contradiction in the government’s approach to increasing LGPS investment in private equity.

For the past eight years, the government’s flagship reform of the LGPS has been pooling, which sees the 86 pension funds transfer assets to eight pooling organisations to invest on their behalf. A central justification has been that economies of scale would reduce fees paid by pension funds.

And not long ago, there were suggestions the Treasury wanted funds to ditch expensive active management of their assets for passive management because it would reduce their fees.

 Matt Dawson, strategic investment manager at Westminster City Council, says the government is asking pension funds to invest in

“The most expensive, most exotic asset class imaginable”. The proposal to invest 10% of LGPS assets in private equity is, he said, “the exact opposite of the prudential code that you have to adhere to with all of your council investments”.

The government is consulting on this proposal over the summer and other significant proposals to reform the LGPS. It is doubtful to force pension funds to invest 10% in private equity, but strongly encourage them to do so instead.

It should be very wary about doing even this. While the LGPS’s £369bn can be used to do a lot of good – whether it be funding social housing and green infrastructure or influencing the behaviour of banks and fossil fuel companies – its first and foremost priority must be investing to achieve the returns needed to pay pensions. Central government demands about how it allocates its assets run counter to this.

In Guys and Dolls, Marlon Brando was lucky: by the film’s end, he had won his bet and got the girl. In contrast, it will be many years before council pension funds know how the script the chancellor attempts to write will end.

For their sake, we must hope that, in the song’s words, Luck really was a lady for Jeremy Hunt.

Does anyone question the decisions of ‘Your Waverley’s Executive other than Farnham Residents councillor Jerry Hyman?

As Guildford Borough Council freezes recruitment…

As Waverley’s Executive prepared to vote unanimously for the council to share staff with cash-strapped Guildford on the brink of bankruptcy, the only councillor who ever seems to rock up and question its wisdom haunted them again.

The Waverley Web asks why everyone leaves it to the man; everyone spends their time trying to gag, and who has the guts to ask the questions we, the taxpayer, want answers to?

He asked.

Are we just helping Guildford out? What’s the rush for this temporary arrangement? Is it Guildford’s pressing need? Are we here at Waverley helping to get GBC out of a tight corner? If so, is this an ethical move and what cost to ourselves. To what extent does it benefit us, do you have a plan. Why are we doing this so urgently.

We have a duty of candour and need to satisfy our residents the case for doing this. will expertisebe available to where we need it most.

Shouldn’t we scrutinise this? Where is the detailed report?

Could we have some straigh answers to some straight questions?

A niggley Leader, Paul Follows, who has a propensity these days to want to lead and never follow, said the difference between a dishonest man and an honest man was that they would both tell you they are honest. He said he liked to believe everyone was honest until proved otherwise.

He said the move was simply a “constitutional mechanic” to share staff between the two authorities and that Guildford had already passed the “constitutional instrument.” After the councilspeak, he said both councils had been sharing staff for months, and it was all about using staff efficiently. 

 “We have been using their staff where we have gaps; this isn’t a one-way street. There are gaps in each council. For example, we have been using their resources here on private sector housing.”

He confirmed that GBC was operating a recruitment freeze but was “hiring  by exception.”

The initial vision for collaboration was set out in 2021. This is just the first step. The larger, more serious element is where people are working and who they are working for, and that will be the subject of a report to both councils in the future.

This is just tidying up about the efficient sharing of resources; we have been doing it for over a month.

An Officer said, This is a technical paper and a report to share staff on an interim basis when it is in the best interests of both councils, and both councils make the decision.

Councillor Liz Townsend supported the move saying: 

We have been working together for the past few months, and there are opportunities to use the knowledge and  expertise of the staff of both councils if and when they arise. I certainly look forward to working with the officers of both councils in the coming months.

Guildford and Waverley Councils have appointed an Interim Chief Finance Officer.

Last night, Waverley councillors were asked to ratify a recommendation to appoint 55-year-old Richard Bates as a Section 151 Interim Executive Head of Finance, which an Interviewing Panel of both the Guildford  & Waverley authorities had unanimously supported. The Group also included leaders of all opposition parties.

It follows the resignation of former Finance Officer Peter Vickers.

Waverley’s leader, Paul Follows,  addressed an Extraordinary Council meeting on Tuesday seeking to confirm the appointment. The exact details of which would be considered in private.

However, much of the confidential information had already been revealed on social media. Not everyone was jubilant, including members of the ruling Liberal Democrat Group. Many councillors were sceptical that they were being asked to support the temporary post for a man who lives in Dorchester at a cost of £927.68p per day or £241,196.80 per year – plus expenses.

According to Leader Follows, who introduced the officer after the webcast was taken offline, Mr Bate was chosen for the critical post due to his level of experience and handling of financial matters of more than one authority.

Cllr Michael Goodridge said this was the third Sec 151 financial officer we have had since the senior management hurriedly merged the management team with Guildford Borough Council just over two years ago. As this was an interim appointment, he suspected there would undoubtedly be a fourth, which shows some staff instability. 

We have only a summary of his CV. I would be interested to know why the candidate left his previous permanent position and was surprised to see where he lived! 

He said: 

I was amazed when at a recent licensing panel meeting I was advised that the lawyer was an interim officer living in Chester, which seems a bit of a distance.

I note the financial implications. The daily rate being paid comes to an eye-watering sum when multiplied by the days in the week plus some 6 weeks’ holidays. I can’t mention any more unti we are in Exempt. (confidential session when the press & public are excluded.)

I am also concerned that due to Guildrord BC’s current financial problems, we will not have or fair share of this officer’s time.  As the merger of Guildford was to save money I don’t believe this is going the right way. We need to have a finance officer, so will of course vote for it. But it is at a cost!

Cllr Jerry Hyman. said he echoed the sentiments of concern that others also shared. Asking how long it is going to take to find a permanent officer. 

It appears that the agency has found a permanent cadidate/s. We are told a permanent officer will be found in September. If that is the case, the longer we have the interim rates split between two councils, the costs are a lot. Guildford will require more of his time. We are throwing away money on Agency staff when we had initially hoped to save through the collaboration with Guildford Borough Council.

Cllr Ken Reed. The most important point was how long the interim appointment would continue, warning…

otherwise the costs would become eye-watering.

The Borough Solicitor confirmed there would be a similar process by Guildford yesterday, Wednesday, to confirm  Mr Bates’ appointment. 

Leader Follows assured the officer’s time would be split equally between the authorities. Saying,

It is more  important that we get the right person than any person and can handle the job in question.

We are not merging with Guildford – we are sharing resources and some staff.

He said he expected the new officer to put 50% of his time at Waverley, though there would be times when this might be different.   

You will see for yourselves the amount of time and effort our officers regularly put in.

The Recommendation was carried by 39 votes with six abstentions. 

OUR RECENT POST

New homes on their way to Binscombe?

As all the wannabe developers gather in their droves to pour over every vacant green field in the borough, the Loseley Manor-based More-Molyneux family is the latest to jump on the bandwagon…again.

A new planning application to build 27 dwellings, including houses, flats and maisonettes, by Opus Works has recently been received by Waverley Borough Council. (WA/2023/01714) Residents are urging everyone to object NOW! The window for objections is tight – 2nd September.

https://planning360.waverley.gov.uk:4443/planning/search-applications?civica.query.FullTextSearch=WA%2F2023%2F01714

Landowners, the More-Molyneux family of the Loseley Estate, are trying again on the same site, having failed on a previous occasion to get lift-off by a Government Inspector at an appeal in 2019.  

In 2018, an application for 21 houses was refused. Despite an appeal, which the appointed Government Inspector dismissed in the strongest terms, the residents of Binscombe and Farncombe are once again fighting inappropriate development.

The field is on the edge of Binscombe, a medieval hamlet first recorded in 1227. The heart of the village comprises a mere 25 dwellings, nine of which are listed and many of which are 16th century in date.  

If allowed, residents say this development would double the size of the village at a stroke. A bit like Alfold, then?

This is depressing and deeply worrying when landowners and their agents keep trying to build on completely inappropriate parcels of land for financial gain.

Try, try and if not successful – try again.

In a press release to the Waverley Web, objectors outline their concerns.

The field was removed from the Green Belt to make the land available for housing. The Council refused the 2019 application, but an appeal swiftly followed. The Government Inspector nominated to examine the appeal came down firmly on the side of those who objected and were passionate about preserving the adjoining Heritage Assets, including the Binscombe Conservation area. These assets are protected in law, a fact the applicants seem to have forgotten or at least feel of no great importance. The Inspector also clearly stated in his dismissal that the rural character of the setting of Binscombe was without doubt worth preserving. 

According to Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2), the second stage of Waverley’s new Local Plan, Godalming has exceeded new homes targets, while other parts of the borough have not.  

CPRE Surrey ( Campaign for Preservation of Rural England)  has objected that any development on the field would not be reconcilable with the Green Belt principles in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and would be a…

“material encroachment into the Countryside and sprawl from Farncombe”.

As 219 dwellings have exceeded Local Plan Part 1, it has been decided that housing allocations for Godalming are no longer required in LPP2.

Selling off small parcels of land, such as the field in question for development, enables landowners and developers to avoid the cumulative impacts of developments within areas, often on the Green Belt. In recent years, other land near Binscombe, owned by the More-Molyneux family, has been subject to pre-development applications. There is concern that the latest planning application  (WA/2023/01714) will set a precedent for more if it goes through.  

This latest application is deeply concerning and shows a high level of arrogance bearing in mind the Inspector’s condemnatory conclusion in 2019.

Additional problems with the site include the access road being a dangerous, narrow lane, only 4.3 metres wide. The only way to widen and make it safer is to destroy ancient hedgerows. The scheme suggests 57 car parking spaces, without doubt, disproportionate to the number of dwellings.

The More-Molyneux family and the developer have dismissed suggestions to make the development accessible from the adjacent Copse Side because it is not as aesthetically attractive as the proposed entrance from the narrow and dangerous lane in Binscombe.

The revised NPPF strengthens the protection of Heritage assets, and even the Council acknowledge an obligation to preserve and enhance Conservation areas that may be affected by a planning proposal. The application admits there would be harm to the local rural environment and the adjacent Conservation area. 

Not all residents near the site received notification from Waverley Borough Council. In contrast, others received letters with less than three weeks to submit comments/objections by the deadline, and the public notice was placed 200 metres from the entrance.

A resident in Farncombe who lives on the other side of the potential development has initiated a petition that has attracted 100 signatories objecting to the planning application within 48 hours, confirming the huge amount of local opposition.

Residents ask?

Waverley now has a Brownfield site register showing the potential for hundreds of new homes. When our elected politicians tell us that new homes should be built on these sites rather than greenfield ones, why should this field even be in the planning mix?  

The Inspector clearly stated in 2019 that

‘the proposal would have a harmful effect on the Binscombe Conservation Area’ …‘the proposal would cause significant harm to the heritage assets’, and ‘it would be harmful to an important part of the rural significance of the Conservation Area’. 

Objectors say:

This is about 30 metres from the site, and we feel passionate about protecting our green countryside and our heritage.

The site would be accessed by a narrow country lane, lacking footpaths, and highway safety would be compromised. Pedestrians, in particular, would be severely at risk. A high level of extra traffic through both Binscombe and Farncombe would be sadly inevitable.

Did they or didn’t ‘Your Waverley approve a budget of £1,96m to convert a Godalming High Street Store it bought earlier this year for £2,634?

That is the question.

 The Council met at an Extraordinary meeting to take the next step in deciding the future of the former M & Co high street store to boost its finances and help boost the high street.

Led by Cllr Jerry Hyman last night, councillors only avoided going behind closed doors by two votes, 18 to 16, with four abstentions to decide the next step. He claimed it was in the public interest that the debate and decision should be in open session. The Council was embarking on a commercial venture with the ratepayer’s money, in total over £4m.

However, the doors were closed to the press and public.

Cllr Hyman said:  I opposed the purchase 18 months ago – I was the only member of this council to do so.    I am very worried. I cannot support this when all the risk is being dumped on the Housing Revenue account. We do not have the skill set. Look what has happened elsewhere like Woking. We should be discussing this in public.

The following steps for a Godalming High Street store.

until a deal is demonstrated, I won’t be supporting this and I dont want to move into Exempt. 

Of course, the enormous retail elephant in the room is not in Godalming but in Farnham. Brightwells Yard. We are supposed to ignore its vast emptiness and its long-term costs—the noose around the borough and county council’s necks.

The Recommendations

The Executive recommends to Council the approval of a budget of £230,000 (Exempt Annexe 2), to be met from the Asset Investment Reserve, to progress phase 1 of the revised project.

This will deliver the project’s commercial element to RIBA Stage 4 (the detailed design stage) and enable the submission of a planning application for the retail unit. Page 5 4 2.2 the approval of an overall capital budget of £1.96 million (including the £230,000 referred to above), as per the breakdown in Exempt Appendix 4, to cover the anticipated cost of the capital works to the commercial unit, with delegation to Executive to approve the final budget once tender returns for the construction contract have been received.

Our readers have been confused about the location of the development that was unanimously consented to by Waverley Planners at Hurst Farm, Milford, earlier this week. Our grateful thanks go to Kathy Smyth and Christine for identifying several much clearer site maps.

Big green spaces in the middle, existing ponds kept, and two vehicle entrances so residents of this development can avoid the mini-roundabout in Milford altogether.

Large space made available for 19,500 square foot doctors surgery and 40 car parking spaces.

WA/2022/02194

https://www.youtube.com/live/6OJZazRKTOY?featu

A whopping great development on Godalming’s ‘ Secretts site could get the go-ahead this week.

Councillors agreed unanimously to grant a scheme from developerPtarmigan Land, Bewley Homes & FA Secretts Ltd to build 216 homes, change the use of an existing farm shop building to a rural business hub, provide a new farm shop, public open space, sports pitches and associated infrastructure, landscaping, drainage, parking and new access points following the demolition of existing buildings.

Also agreed: outline application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of a new health hub following the demolition of the existing black barn.

From this:

To this.

John Secrett. Co-owner of the 4th generation family business. He told the committee the business founded by his grandfather moved to Milford in 1937. Changes in horticulture prompted diversification over the years, and the company opened one of the first Farm Shops in the country supported by Waverley Council. 

He said: The scheme before you carries the traditions of the past into the future—a more modern Farm Shop with Secretts continuing to grow crops and selling to the best restaurants in the city. It would reflect the company’s vision, retaining the ponds and green spaces. The land had been offered to the Milford & Witley GP Practice. which would have a positive impact on the local community. We have the support of both parish councils. I am asking you to support this scheme.

 Officers said the land had been removed from the Green Belt, and the site was included for developing mixed-use housing and relocating businesses in the Neighbourhood Plan.

The scheme would conserve and enhance the heritage assets and provide a landscape buffer to the north of the site. A new farm shop would be provided in the southern part of the site. Existing ponds were retained and utilised to provide the Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes and would now be open to the public. West of Meadow Close, retained as open space and tree planting.

There would be changes to the junction at Chapel Lane where the new business centre would be sited. Most residential buildings are single-storey, with some two and a half. Pedestrian walkways are provided to the public open spaces. Two junior playing pitches and a toilet block with access from Eashing Lane within the GBC area. Cycle and pedestrian links would join up with Franklin Way, and the Godalming Greenway beyond, and a key route for pedestrian traffic would link to the new healthcare hub and business centre.

Cllr Maxine Gale said a development of this size can cause concerns for local people, but new homes can settle in if done with care and understanding. Some are concerned about the loss of the Green Belt. But the In Witley Neighbourhood Plan had identified it as the preferred site.

Many changes had taken place. And a new access to the B3100  reduces the impact on the roundabout. The new health centre was needed, and all homes have personal outside space, with the affordable homes well mixed into market homes.

However, she said there would be an impact on Milford traffic, and she would like highway improvements made sooner rather than later in the life of the scheme |

She wanted a timetable for the health hub  coming forward. ,

We don’t want to see an empty building site.

Concerns about the ponds could become two big holes in the ground if not topped up. Officers assured that they would be part of the SUDS and would have water draining into them from the development.

Cllr Carole Cockburn was concerned about BIO Diversity net gain. How are we ever going to know if it works? How will it be monitored to reveal success or failure?

Waverley’s Chief Planning Officer said it would be met with  Conditions,  Baseline data points, and ongoing management plans and secured through 106 monitoring plans in perpetuity.

Cllr Carole Cockburn  said she was baffled.

We are taking over a green space to build on. I don’t understand how the base data can be monitored accurately. Is it worth it? I hope it works. I am delighted that this has arrived eventually, a change in numbers is not material. I hope we have more aplications where we sit down and listen to each other. This is a considered application, and the developer has talked to the community. This could turn into a lovely place to live. The public green space will be of enormous benefit, and there are benefits to more housing. I am delighted to support it.

Cllr Graham White asked how Waverley would ensure the planting plan had been completed and correctly carried out.

Officers said that we need to monitor these big sites to ensure conditions are being complied with; we have found landscape architects put in trees and don’t water them, and in year 2/3, planting fails. We have to ensure it succeeds in the first year and the following years.

Before all ten members of the planning committee voted for the scheme, Cllr  Gale said:

There has been a lot of work ut it to ensure this is a development, unlike a lot of sticky boxes. The problem will be traffic. We may even get the Milford Golf Course development, so we need those highway conditions coming in sooner rather than later.

The WW receives numerous comments from the public on our boards. But, now and again, they deserve a wider airing.

Was Waverley Planning Sabotaged By Tory Councillors?

Point of Clarification from Waverley resident Kathy Smythe.

I’ve always been fairly sceptical that the Inspectorate would want to take over Waverley’s planning department and administer the 2,000-3,000 applications that it receives most years – and btw this sheer weight of numbers is right at the top end of the numbers of applications received by the ten or so authorities being considered for designation for their failure to deal promptly with the more minor applications. So a while back, I looked this regulation up and came to the conclusion that the summaries I’ve been reading in the press and media of what will happen in the event of designation have become fairly inaccurate.

This quote is from the explanatory note attached to the end of the order, which actually introduced this provision. So here goes…

“Section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) provides that a local planning authority may be designated by the Secretary of State. Where an authority is designated, a person applying for planning permission for major development may choose to submit their application to the Secretary of State for determination.”

A few things to note.

This only applies to ‘major applications’, of which perhaps the most important category is applications for 10+ houses. Also, it is down to the developer to opt to apply to the Planning Inspectorate. It is not automatic. So you may say that they will opt for this, but the downside for the developer is that there is no appeal against the decision, including the conditions. Then as far as I can work out, it only seems to apply to outline applications. And finally, but importantly, it says explicitly that it DOESN’T apply to what they call householder applications.

So my interpretation is that comments that WBC will be ‘stripped’ of all powers are quite misleading. More accurately, at least as far as I can make out, developers with major applications will be offered an alternative route to planning but one that carries certain risks.

WA/2022/02194

Ptarmigan Land, Bewley Homes & FA Secretts Ltd want to build 216 homes   change of use of an existing farm shop building to a rural business hub, provide a new farm shop, public open space, sports pitches and associated infrastructure, landscaping, drainage, parking and new access points following the demolition of existing buildings.

Also: To be considered by the planning committee at 6 pm tomorrow, Wednesday, outline application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of a new health hub following the demolition of the existing black barn. 

AT LAND AT HURST FARM CHAPEL LANE GODALMING GU8 5HU

The 15.3-hectare site is currently accessed from Chapel Lane, near the junction with Farm Lane.  It includes the existing Secretts farm shop and tea rooms. It extends to the north behind the existing industrial and residential premises and east behind Meadow Close and Turnpike Cottage to the northern side of Portsmouth Road.

To the north, the site goes beyond the Borough boundary into the Guildford Borough Council area, where it fronts onto the southeastern side of Eashing Lane.  In addition to the farm shop and tea rooms, the site is currently occupied by the wider Secretts Farm, which extends beyond the application boundary to the east.

There are a number of large greenhouses which are proposed for demolition, as well as paved yards and storage areas and ancillary office/workspace accommodation.

A series of ponds to the southern part of the site, which the public is permitted to walk around for recreational purposes, albeit without a formal public right of way. The western part of the site, in the vicinity of the existing farm shop, is within the Milford Conservation Area.Turnpike Cottage to the south is a Grade II Listed building.

There are some retail and industrial uses on the (southern) side of Portsmouth Road and adjacent to Chapel Lane. The majority of the surrounding area, however, is occupied by medium-density terraced and semi-detached homes.

An area of improved public space would be provided at the main site entrance off Chapel Lane near the junction with Portsmouth Road. Beyond this would be sited the proposed rural business hub. This would utilise the retained buildings of the main existing farm shop courtyard and adjacent buildings to provide accommodation within use class E.

New healthcare hub for new larger GP surgery

Beyond this would be the new healthcare hub with 1,626m2 of floor space and 49 parking spaces within this area. Ten parking spaces to serve local shops are proposed to the north of the site. The Milford GP practice and its Patient Partivpation Group welcomes the chance to move and expand.

The 216 properties of various types and tenures, including some three-storey blocks, would be set around a central green space as well as a play space and an area of green space adjacent to the ponds.

The residential buildings would have two or three storeys. There would be three three-storey blocks, each containing nine flats. Sixty-five affordable dwellings in total represent 30% of the overall scheme. Of these, 33 would have a social rented tenure which is the tenure that best meets the housing need within the Borough (with the lowest rents of any affordable housing tenure at 55% of market rent).

Sports pitches

To the north of the site, two junior playing pitches are proposed with vehicular access onto Eashing Lane. This land is within the Guildford Borough Council(GBC) area and is subject to a separate application for determination by GBC. There would be no vehicular through route onto Eashing Lane into the residential element, but there would be a footpath linking the two areas. 

New farm shop including cafe.

 The proposed replacement farm shop would be sited to the southeastern part of the site and would be served by access off Portsmouth Road. The access would continue to the side of the farm shop to allow access to the proposed residential area. The two-storey building would have a total floor area of 3217m2.

A café would be provided on the first floor, which would have an outdoor seating terrace of 139m2. A rooftop terrace (effectively at the second-floor level) of 129m2 is also proposed. One hundred thirty parking spaces would be provided to the south of the building, alongside a delivery area to the east. A new pedestrian route from the farm shop area in an arc linking into the health hub/business centre area would be provided alongside extensive landscaping. The existing ponds would be retained adjacent to the new path.

Not everyone welcomes the scheme.

To date, 69 letters have been received raising objections, one letter in support and six letters recorded as neutral.

The list of objections is as long as your arm, including…

• Significantly more than the 177 dwellings in the site allocation and damage to the separation  of Milford and Godalming
• The AONB is proposed to be extended to cover Milford. – Overlooking from outdoor high-level terraces from the Farm shop to Meadow Close
• Increased traffic congestion and cause the new development to be used as a cut-through.
• Station Lane is unsafe for access to the station as described in the Travel Plan. 
• Noise disturbance to residents of Meadow Close from the farm shop and access road.
• Encourage anti-social behaviour in the area around the ponds. –
• Smells from the farm shop bins will be noticeable within the gardens of Meadow Close.
• Loss of green space around the ponds will impact protected species.
• Light pollution –
• Disproportionate scale to the village and an overdevelopment
• Impact on the rural character and will destroy the existing centre of the village.  
• Existing roads not adequate for the traffic
• Detailed concerns raised in the Transport Assessment – Schools, public transport, nurseries, GPs and dentists will all struggle with increased demand for services.
• The healthcare hub is only proposed in outline and no guarantee that it will be delivered.
• Unacceptable demand on sewerage.
• Building in green belt land is not warranted as there are no exceptional circumstances.
• Loss of agricultural land
• The density is too high, and there should be an Environmental Impact assessment.

And more… much more, including an objection From Friends of The Earth.

– Does not comply with LPP2 Policy DM2. No target emission rate has been supplied, and no details of compliance with building regs part L for individual buildings. There is, therefore, insufficient information regarding how the proposal will maximise energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions.

There is no information regarding how heating demands will be met. This is not suitable for a detailed application, and permission should be refused in the absence of such information.

– Photovoltaics will be necessary to meet part L, but their locations haven’t been considered, and the roof design of many proposed dwellings is unsuitable.

Air source heat pumps would be necessary for the flat blocks, but these require fans which may result in noise disturbance to residents and adjoining occupiers.

Does not comply with Policy DM1 as would not avoid exacerbating climate change and emission of greenhouse gases. – The amended documents do not address concerns – The proposal isn’t viable – Will lead to dust and damaged air quality, which will compromise the health of existing residents.

There are sufficient grounds for an appeal should planning permission be granted. –

Officers are recommending the scheme be granted as the public benefits of the scheme are considered to be significant. Because it includes the provision of 216 dwellings, improved shopping and ancillary dining facility for the village, and 65  affordable tenure homes, many of which would be social rented housing which is the preferred affordable rental tenure. The proposal would also provide significant new green space and public realm, playing pitches and a healthcare hub. Whilst the heritage harm is afforded great weight, it is considered in this instance that the public benefits of the scheme do outweigh this harm.