Part 4 of Ding, Dong the By-Election is on!


Or…why are we waiting?


In our efforts to cover the Godalming By-Election, which takes place on Wednesday, we have waited patiently for a response to our request for information from the Conservative Party.  

And we are not the only ones! Here’s a few comments from the Godalming Noticeboard.

Screen Shot 2017-12-11 at 19.04.03.png

The Conservatives are  fielding one candidate for the Waverley Borough Council seat and one for the Town Council.

Maybe Councillor Stella Andersen Payne’s Stellar performance as a former Waverley Councillor for Farnham, has convinced voters in  Godalming that she needs no introduction. So  there is no need for her to respond to our requests? But, maybe Graham Bennewith will get in touch – there’s still time.

So far, the only comments we can find from Godalming folk on Ms Anderson Payne’s go along these lines…

  • – By not appearing on the Godalming Community Board Facebook she is either  out of touch, or not interested, in her ward?
    – concerned that when she was Waverley Councillor for Dockenfield she almost caused a by-election due to non-attendance.
    – a Tory paper candidate that will do nothing for the town

But they may feel differently if she lets everyone know, other than on the doorstep, how she hopes to represent them?

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 18.04.49.png

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 18.16.44.png

According to some of our Farnham followers when Ms Andersen-Payne represented the Dockenfield Ward at ‘YW,’ she ‘rarely bothered to turn up,’  Still, we are sure she will do better this time – won’t she? 

Here are posts on the other candidates.

Part 3 of… Ding,Dong the fight’s begun!

Ding,Dong the fight’s begun!Part 2 of Ding Dong the battle has begun to win the Godalming By-Election.

Ding, Dong the fight’s begun to win Godalming’s By-Election. Part 1.Lib Dems.

This letter says it all – about ‘Your Waverley’s very own ‘Omen.’


Regular readers of the Waverley Web will be well acquainted with the antics of Damian Roberts – nicknamed ‘The Omen’ by us and the ‘silent assassin’ by many of Waverley’s own workforce. What we, and many others, would like to know is did he jump, or was he pushed, before he sent that effusive message of his impending departure to councillors?

Like the writer of this letter in the Farnham Herald featured below, we wonder whether those who jump ship, and who may have made serious, VERY SERIOUS, mistakes, can be held accountable when they slip neatly into another, more senior role at Epsom & Ewell Council?

We also wonder why everyone is keeping schtum, marking time, or perhaps, even hiding the results of the Farnham  air quality  investigation that has been going on for months? We had believed councillors were   to receive regular up-dates on such an important matter?   But then we suppose those might have been given behind closed doors?  Since that Press Release on 26th September – zilch – perhaps its time the local bobbies were brought in?

We understand that a neighbouring council may be doing a limited audit, with a limited remit, to investigate Your Waverley’s quality management systems, wonder which one?

Perhaps ‘Your Waverley’ would prefer not to wash all its dirty linen in public until the Local  Plan is adopted and the re-development of Blightwells begins?

Oh what a tangled web they weave – when once they practise to deceive?

The Omen is… roamin’!


we dare issue word of warning to Th Omen’s  new employers, from his existing and former employers at Croydon Council?

Watch Your Backs at all times! And, if you value your voluntary services – give the responsibility to someone else! And to the head honcho, – be warned – he wants your job  too, and soon!

 The salary agreed at the Executive Meeting a week ago for a new  CEO that is being  advertised at  £124K just isn’t big enough … is it? This is the rate for the job according to an Employment consultancy called Solace.

Waverley’s housing targets in doubt? And… where you can’t build in Farnham.


What does SANG mean:

Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace | SURREY HEATH

Map of where you can’t build in Farnham – Build Nothing 0-400m
Provide mitigation and SANG 400 – 5K with 2KM circular dog walks.
(The idea is to prevent dog walkers from trampling the nests of rare ground nesting birds in the 4 months they are breeding)

Or…SPOT THE SANG!24879844_10155918360541613_2940788916913330835_o.jpg

The Farnham Herald, Thursday 7th December 2017 – Vol. 128 No. 22

WAVERLEY planning officers have apparently flouted the advice of Natural England by continuing to press for an immediate increase in Farnham’s housing target despite concerns over the possible impact on the rare heathland surrounding the town.

Responding to a consultation on proposed modifications to part one of Waverley’s draft Local Plan in October, Natural England slated the amendments as “not legally compliant” and in particular criticised Waverley’s proposal to add a further 450 houses to the 2,780 already allocated for Farnham over the plan’s lifespan.

According to the government’s environment watchdog, adequate Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) has not been identified in the Waverley Local Plan to deter new homeowners from the Thames Basin and Wealden heaths Special Protection Areas (SPAs), and Waverley’s planning blueprint therefore “does not meet all of the tests of soundness”.

This was raised by inspector Jonathan Bore in a series of questions to Waverley last month, asking how Waverley can ensure the 450 extra houses allocated for Farnham can be built in light of Natural England’s objection ?

However, in a 45-page response to the inspector this week, Waverley stuck to its original position that “sufficient suitable SANG sites will come forward”, without offering any evidence of possible SANG sites in the pipeline, and concluded dismissively that “the housing requirement in Farnham will not be delayed by a lack of SANG”.

SPAs are an international planning designation requiring EU member states to safeguard the habitats of migratory birds and certain particularly threatened birds. Farnham and its surrounding countryside is protected by two SPAs – the Thames Basins Heaths and Wealdon Heath SPAs.

The most significant of these, the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, covers an area of more than 8,000 hectares, connecting heathlands across Hampshire, Berkshire and Surrey supporting important breeding bird populations such as the Dartford warbler, nightjar and woodlark.

W W comment: Do you remember when a Cranleigh councillor suggested the Dartford Warbler might soon be moving north due to climate change!

About 80 hectares of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA is within Waverley to the north of Farnham. However, a buffer zone restricting development within 5km of the SPA affects most of Farnham.

Waverley’s SPA avoidance strategy, as approved by Natural England, aims to offset the impact of new development on the SPAs by providing Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace – in Waverley’s case by improving access to Farnham Park.

However, as the only SANG currently identified in the borough, Farnham Park’s capacity to offset new housing is rapidly diminishing and unless Waverley can find new SANG in the area, the council has admitted that Farnham’s housing target is unachievable.

Out of a total housing requirement of 2,780 in Farnham, 1,366 homes are yet to come forward over the remainder of the plan period (2013 to 2032). But the latest calculations show that there is SANG capacity for just 890 to 1,069 dwellings at Farnham Park, leaving a large potential shortfall.

Waverley has made approaches to several landowners in a bid to source new SANG and meet local housing demand, including owners of the former Farnham Quarry, now known locally as the Tice’s Meadow nature reserve, Hanson.

However, none are yet guaranteed and Natural England has dismissed the quarry as a possible SANG, commenting that it is already under a Section 106 agreement for Hanson to manage this area until 2030 for nature conservation and cannot meet all of the ‘must have’ SANG criteria.

The latest row concerning Waverley’s ill-fated attempts to update its Local Plan comes just a week after it was revealed the borough council faces an imminent threat of being placed in ‘special measures’ by Whitehall civil servants for losing too many major planning appeals.

Waverley has left itself vulnerable to appeals after proposing an early review of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, the borough’s only up-to-date planning blueprint, just weeks after its adoption in August.

And council officers now fear the number of major planning applications refused but allowed at appeal could soon exceed the 10 per cent threshold allowed by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

To combat this, Waverley’s executive last week agreed to more training workshops for councillors and officers to avoid “unnecessary” refusals.

But addressing the state of affairs at Tuesday’s meeting of the full council, opposition Farnham Residents councillor Andy MacLeod, blamed the broken planning system – not a lack of training – for the latest threat to the borough.

He said: “I’ve attended many appeals concerning Farnham, and you’d think you were attending a criminal trial with Waverley Borough Council and Farnham Town Council in the dock, and the developers as the prosecutors.

“Members of the public who have come along have been totally astonished. They thought they were coming along to hear about the merits or demerits of the application, but it turns out they were there to hear about all the deficiencies of Waverley Borough Council.

“The Government keeps talking about the broken housing system, but in my opinion they are the ones who have broken it. They’ve created an imbalance in the system very much in favour of developers, and until they redress that balance we will always be in danger of losing appeals.”

Farnham Town Council is meeting with its Waverley colleagues on a monthly basis to discuss the proposed Local Plan modifications, but is yet to announce any significant concessions. The examination of Waverley’s Local Plan continues.


Part 3 of… Ding,Dong the fight’s begun!


Ding, Dong the fight’s begun to win Godalming’s By-Election. Part 1.Lib Dems.

Part 2 of Ding Dong the battle has begun to win the Godalming By-Election.


This election was prompted by the sudden resignation of Godalming Town Council Mayor, and Tory Waverley Borough Councillor Simon Thornton for undisclosed ‘personal reasons.’ Reasons, that the whole town is talking about!

In our efforts to ensure you know who you are voting for … some, despite our  repeated attempts, haven’t so far provided information… we are featuring here Lewis Curtis  the Labour man standing for the Godalming Town Council seat.

Lewis Curtis 2-1.jpg

Lewis,  who has  lived in the Godalming area his whole life, says:

‘I am committed to doing everything in my power to making sure everyone has a voice in our community. 

I have lived in a council house for most of my life, so I understand the importance of social housing, and investing in it. I will make sure the people have someone to fight for them on this issue.

I am a blue badge holder as I was born with a physical disability, and I understand the importance of this scheme. Blue badges allow people to live independent, active lives and to access the community and its facilities. Having a disability has a financial impact on day to day life which can be costly, and free parking is an essential, not a luxury. 

It will be an honour to be elected as your local councillor.’

Mr Lewis might be interested in reading our blogs on the disabled parking charges that have been imposed and  the problems faced by the disabled in flashing their cash in the borough’s car parks!



Want to know how much it cost ‘Your Waverley’ to dig into the pockets of the disabled, Mr Beaman?


Read our recent post here: Diddling the Disabled?

Since our earlier little missive  on the current state of disabled  parking in Waverley, a letter, criticising the Waverley Web, has appeared in the Farnham and Herald Newspapers.

Here at the Waverley Web we take criticism on the chin, or in our case on the pharynx – after all that’s the name of the game.

We have included a pdf file at the bottom of this post so you can read it for yourselves!  Whilst we apologise to Mr Beaman of the SW Surrey Disabled Alliance Network for not raising the issue earlier, we must  point out that the Waverley Web does not have the benefit of teams of journalists ringing around local organisations. we just do our best. Highlighting the issues around the introduction of charges in Waverley – at The Royal Surrey and Frimley Park Hospitals have all been featured over many months on the Waverley Web – so our latest posts were not, as Mr Beaman  claims, “political opportunism’. In our book,  issues that profoundly  affect the lives of the most vulnerable should never be a political issue? 

 For the record our team sports a number of political leanings. Tory/Labour/Lib Dem and one who is a bit further right than Genghis Khan. We also have one contributor that would have to be dragged kicking and screaming towards any ballot box! He believes that politics should play no part in local government, saying it would be better for us all if everyone was Independent. 

So, Mr Beaman, once again we are sorry that we did not come up to scratch with your organisation – and we promise to  do better. With your help, we will  continue to fight for the rights of the disabled, because the fight is certainly not over yet!  Please feel free to contact us at any time where you will find us eager to listen to any issues your organisation may have, now or in the future. and thank you for bringing this to our attention and please use this e-mail address in confidence …  



Yes £16,000 to adapt the pay and display machines and the poor devils still cannot reach the machines from their wheelchairs! We at the Waverley Web hope, that if, while the disabled are rummaging for their pound coins, their brakes are well and truly on. Or they could roll backwards!


20171207090514405 copy

Part 2 of Ding Dong the battle has begun to win the Godalming By-Election.



The election  was prompted by the sudden resignation of Godalming Town Council Mayor, and Tory Waverley Borough Councillor Simon Thornton for, undisclosed ‘personal reasons’. Reasons, that the whole town is talking about!

The Waverley Web is  keen to inform Godalming residents of  the reasons why the men and women  featured want to represent them in the Central & Ockford seat for the remaining two years left in the life of both councils.  Although we have managed to contact some prospective candidates – who  replied moments after receiving our requests – others have not been quite so forthcoming! 

Richard Ashworth 1.JPG

Richard Ashworth  is standing as the Labour candidate for the Waverley Borough Council seat. Richard has lived in the Ockford ward for seven years and in Godalming for 30 years.  Both his children and now his grandchildren have attended local schools including Green Lane where he was a representative on the Parent Teachers’ Association.  Most weeks he says he can be found early in the morning swimming at Broadwater Leisure Centre.

‘I am passionate about fairness, especially for young people saddled with debt and little chance of climbing the mortgage ladder. More social and affordable housing is urgently needed, especially for the young, as well as better rent control and more help for those with mental health issues’.

It is time that Waverley Council represented all of its constituents and I will do my best to make sure this happens’.


Ding, Dong the fight’s begun to win Godalming’s By-Election. Part 1.Lib Dems.


The emergency, emergency at Godawfulming is over? Isn’t it?

If you have been on holiday – or have been busy rummaging in the loft looking for the Christmas decorations, you may have missed the fact that a By-Election is about to take place in Godalming during the busiest week of the year. 

This was prompted by the sudden resignation of Godalming Town Council Mayor, and Tory Waverley Borough Councillor Simon Thornton for/ undisclosed ‘personal reasons’. Reasons, that the whole town is talking about!

As you will see from this link:  The emergency, emergency at Godawfulming is over? Isn’t it? Godalming Town Councillor Anne Bott has taken over the Mayoral role, but it would appear that despite wishing to join the chain-gang she’s not quite so eager to jump into the local butcher’s boots at ‘Your Waverley’! Wonder why?

Here at the Waverley Web we are  keen to inform Godalming residents of  the reasons why the men and women  want to represent them in the Central & Ockford seat for the remaining two years left of the life of both councils. Although we have managed to contact some prospective candidates – who replied moments after receiving our requests – others have not been quite so forthcoming! No prizes for guessing who!

So over the coming days we will give you a brief run down of those who have thrown their hats into the Waverley/Godalming  rings.
Waverleyweb_election.jpgIn no particular order – as they say on Strictly Come Dancing – we have  Paul Follows the Liberal Democrat candidate who is standing for both the Godalming Town council and Waverley Borough Council seats.image1.jpeg This Godalming man’s   main motivation for standing is quite simple:

 ‘The utter lack of opposition to the Tories in Godalming’.

The 31  year-old former university of Surrey student  now works for BAe Systems Applied Intelligence. He and his Lib Dem colleagues have wasted no time in speaking to as many people as they possibly can before the election on  December 13. They say they want to fully understand residents’ concerns. 

Paul has lived in Godalming for several years and  commutes to Guildford for work at the Surrey Research Park where his work covers standards, legal compliance and ethical conduct. He enjoys cricket and ice hockey and is a tenor in the Guildford Choral Society.

He says, ‘another motivation for my getting into politics has been my parents. My father is a retired soldier and my mother is an HLTA at a school in Guildford. Both have had cancer in the last 5 years and survived – largely due to fantastic staff – and so access to these services and providing for health services locally is a big deal for me personally. Equally an affinity for the teaching and defence professions is something built into me.’

‘Over the past few weeks we have been all over the ward canvassing, handing out leaflets and talking people. I just wanted to use this opportunity to feedback on some of the issues people have raised with me time and again on the doorstep’.

  •  Affordable housing which is balanced with the needs of the people living within their communities. People are really concerned that new houses without new infrastructure to support  them will cause big problems;
  • The speed and weight of traffic through residential areas (particularly near schools);
  • The total absence of any other voice at Waverley borough council, other than that of Farnham residents and the Tories. The impact of austerity measures and the frustration with  an unchallenged council  that  repeatedly fails to deliver.

Asked by the Waverley Web, what he seeks to achieve between now and 2019?

 ‘To me that is clear. Local residents have given me a list of issues they would like  investigated,  and, if electors give me the mandate,  I  hope to make progress on those. In addition I want to be that voice of opposition and scrutiny (hopefully the first of many) and essentially be the conscience that our Tory dominated councils desperately need when it comes to further austerity measures.

I want everyone to know I will be accessible during the campaign –  on a stall next Saturday (9th) in the heart of the town if anyone wants to come and have a chat.

Many thanks and I hope to see many of you on polling day. Paul.

Are the Berkeley Bunnies now upsetting us as they prepare to burrow into Farnham?





Does Berkeley Homes really want to match its developer colleagues Crest Nicholson by building something in Farnham that matches – Blightwells?

They cannot be serious?

They’re having a laugh, aren’t they?


Letters from the Farnham Herald – our weekly newspaper.24132071_10155896695516613_3908282039500894585_o.jpg


There are old bankers and bold bankers – but in parts of Waverley – quite soon there could be no bankers!


Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 21.17.19.png

Small businesses in the borough are already up in arms at the rolling closures and the ever depleting services of local banks. Reduced hours and services in some others have caused confusion, particularly for old people in the rural areas. Now the closures announced by  the National Westminster/RBS Bank have angered businesses in Waverley including those in Haslemere and Cranleigh, which only recently lost its HSBC bank, and which, we understand, is to be replaced by – ‘Specsavers’.

A total of twelve  branches are closing in Surrey – including Cranleigh; Guildford (Woodbridge Hill); Banstead; Cobham; Haslemere; Horley; Morden; East Sheen; West Byfleet; Reigate; West Byfleet and Wimbledon; There are a number of others on the Surrey/Sussex and Surrey/Hampshire borders that effect Waverley residents.

RBS is closing a total of 259 branches – one in four of its outlets – and cutting 680 Jobs. The closure involves 62 Royal Bank of Scotland and 197 NatWest branches. The Bank says it will ensure compulsory redundancies are kept to an absolute minimum. The use of its branches, which is 71% owned by the taxpayer, says use of its branches has fallen by 40% since 2014, but the Unite union, which represents bank staff, has called the cuts “savage’.

The move comes after Lloyds announced on Wednesday it would close 49 branches and the Yorkshire Building Society – 13.

Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 21.17.10.png

Cashing in on sickness is on the UP and UP!



Screen Shot 2017-11-22 at 16.49.23.pngMore than 400 people have signed a petition calling for parking charges at Royal Surrey County Hospital in to be scrapped.

The petition says the charges are “a tax on serious illnesses” and “place an unfair and unnecessary burden on families, patients and NHS staff”. 

Drivers are currently charged £4 for the first two hours and £9.50 for the day. They can also buy a weekly parking pass for £20.50, while blue badge holders receive a discount.

Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust increased the charges in 2016 after it decided to invest £10m in building a four-storey car park. Now, they are set to rise… again!

The decision was reached after it secured permission for 173 new temporary parking spaces on the set, and finalised plans for a £10m four-store car park boasting more than 600 spaces.

No-one is denying the spaces are desperately needed, but why do patients have to pay for them? When the new charging regime comes int force on January 4, it will be free to park for 20 mins, but parking for up to two hours goes up from £3 to £3.50. The hospital is complaining that patients are turning up unnecessarily early for out-patient appointments, in order to secure a parking place. No, surprise there!

Neighbours, are fed up with employees, and visitors  jamming up the residential roads around, and it is hoped the hospital’s efforts to secure extra parking will address some of those concerns.

In the meantime it will be up to the public to pay more! Those wanting to park for six hours will pay £7, a 24 hour ticket will go up from £8 to £9, a weekly ticket by another £5 and an oncology day ticket from £3 to £3.50.

A spokesman said: ‘Car parking charges are an unfortunate necessity and the revenue manages and maintains our car parks, directing traffic,  lighting CCTV etc. Any additional revenue goes towards patient care or is used towards projects such as the proposed muti storey car park.’



Care Ashore and Thakeham Homes’ boat sunk by a Government Inspector!


Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 20.44.35


There is jubilation among villagers in a  Surrey/Sussex border village as a Government Inspector throws out a scheme that could have tripled the size of ALFOLD.

Despite only a handful of residents showing up to warn of the dire consequences of dumping such a huge number of homes on a rural village, Inspector Richard Clegg, took on board their concerns as they gave  a host of reasons why the appeal by Care Ashore should be REFUSED.

The decision  is a triumph for Alfold’s Waverley Borough Councillor Kevin Deanus, who, despite being repeatedly bullied by QC David Elvin, stubbornly  refused to accept the argument that Alfold village could not only absorb such a huge increase in its population, but would benefit from it!

The developers had argued at the two-week inquiry, that the benefits would significantly outweigh the harm, and that the provision of up to 500 new homes, together with a new village school, recreation and playground facilities, shops and a cafe, and a care home for seamen, would breathe new life into Alfold. However, the Inspector gave little weight to the need to improve the Care Ashore Charity’s facilities at Sachel Court or to the claim it would provide more  jobs.

However, he did conclude  that  Waverley Borough Council does not have a five-year land supply!

Although the Inspector took into account that a viable agricultural holding would be fragmented by covering the Care Ashore land  with housing, and there had been changes in the type, siting and mix of housing since the inquiry, this was not his main reason for a refusal.

He said his decision was based on the sustainability’  of  such a large development in the heart of the countryside.

In his opinion the site off Loxwood Road and Dunsfold Road,  was, UNSUSTAINABLE.

He also said: In addition Dunsfold Aerodrome is identified as a new settlement.

Policy ALH1 specifies that in the period 2013 to 2032 at least 11,210 additional homes (within Waverley) will be provided: at least 125 homes are to be provided in the parish of Alfold (excluding windfall development and housing in the proposed new settlement at Dunsfold Aerodrome).

(A decision on Dunsfold Aerodrome – the largest brownfield site in the borough – is expected from  the Secretary of State Sajid Javid on, or before, 17 January 2018).

While the Inspector  argued the Springbok development would have a neutral effect in respect of the Area of Great Landscape Value and would comply with planning policies concerning the availability of infrastructure, facilities and services, and would deliver environmental and community benefits, the proposal involved major development in a rural area. The sustainability of the site’s location and the effect on the character and appearance of the area were important considerations, and  he believed, the proposal would be contrary to the Development Plan when considered as a whole.

‘The appeal site is not in a sustainable location for a major residential development and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.’

‘I also find that the scale of housing in areas 2 and 3 would cause substantial harm to Alfold Crossways. I also attach considerable weight to the fact that it would cause an adverse effect on visual amenity at the recreation ground and on  users of the public footpath.’ 

The Inspector also threw out Thakeham Homes application for costs. The two-week hearing is rumoured to have cost ‘YW’ £100,000 and Thakeham Homes in excess of £300,000.

Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 17.40.32.png

Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 14.24.56.png

Here’s the full decision: Appeal Decision 3155714

Here’s a bit of background from the inquiry Click here: 

Snippets on Springbok – Or Thakeham Homes answer to Dunsfold Park.

The controversial public inquiry to more than double the size of Alfold was forced to close early to allow another show to go on!


The men in grey suits could soon be on their way to ‘Your Waverley.’



WAVERLEY Borough Council faces an imminent threat of being placed in ‘special measures’ and having planning decisions taken out of its hands, as a consequence of it undermining the newly-made Farnham Neighbourhood Plan earlier this year.



Your Waverley may welcome developers – but not enough!

In a report to the council’s executive committee on Tuesday – updating Waverley’s performance against Government targets for the ‘speed’ and ‘quality’ of determining planning applications – officers warned that should several appeals go against the council in coming months, its powers of determination could be withdrawn and handed to the Secretary of State.

The borough council’s current performance on speed of dealing with ‘major’ and ‘non-major’ applications is “excellent”, say officers, and its performance on ‘non-major’ appeals is “well within target”.

However, executive members voiced “grave concern” on Tuesday night about the authority’s impending failure to meet the government’s target for the number of major planning applications refused by the council but allowed at appeal.

Against a target threshold that no more than 10 per cent of major appeals should be allowed, Waverley’s record is currently 6.4 per cent.

But officers predict that, subject to the result of several appeals yet to be decided, and refusals not yet appealed, this figure could soon rise to 16 per cent in the “worst case scenario” breaching the Government target.

Pending appeals outlined by officers as putting Waverley at risk of special measures include plans to build:
• 157 homes in Waverley Lane, Farnham,
• 140 in Lower Weybourne Lane, Badshot Lea,
• 56 to the rear of Bindon House in Monkton Lane,
• 102 in Upper Old Park Lane, Folly Hill,
• 254 opposite the Hogs Back Brewery in Tongham Road,
• 43 at Baker Oates Stables in Gardener’s Hill Road,
• 97 on the site of Farnham Park Hotel in Hale Road, and
• 43 at Green Lane Farm, Badshot Lea.

With the exception of Tongham Road, each of the above appeals hinge on the weight afforded to the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, which excludes the sites as either inappropriate for housing or for falling outside of Farnham’s Built-Up Area Boundary.

Waverley adopted the Farnham planning blueprint in late July after a huge 88 per cent of voters backed the plan in a referendum in May.

However, the borough council then undermined the document just weeks later when, announcing modifications to its own Local Plan, it proposed that Farnham find space for a further 450 new homes, requiring a possible early review of the Neighbourhood Plan.

It now appears Waverley’s decision, to cast doubt on the borough’s only up-to-date planning blueprint, could come back to haunt it should its major appeals target tip over 10 per cent as a result.

Addressing the damning report on Tuesday, Farnham Town Council leader Carole Cockburn highlighted the problems caused by Waverley’s decision to propose a review of the adopted Farnham Neighbourhood Plan.

“I assumed you were aware how important Farnham Neighbourhood Plan was in defence of appeals,” she said. “As soon as the Waverley executive declared the plan out of date within weeks of its being made, developers wrote to the Secretary of State, asking him to allow the three recovered appeals.

“Without the protection of a made neighbourhood plan, the developers claimed that the evidence was not convincing enough.”

Waverley’s performance was described as a “significant concern” by Liz Sims, the borough’s head of planning, who recommended more training workshops for councillors and officers and the need for councillors to “recognise and engage the presumption in favour of sustainable development” to avoid “unnecessary” refusals.

She also urged that Waverley’s new Local Plan should be progressed “as quickly as possible” to strengthen the council’s defence against harmful developments.

But hopes that Waverley will meet its timetable target of getting the first part of its Local Plan adopted in December, now look increasingly unlikely, after government inspector Jonathan Bore posed a new set of questions this month on the latest modifications to the plan, which have not yet been answered.

One question relating directly to Farnham, asks how Waverley can ensure the 450 houses on top of the 2,780 allocated for Farnham can be built, due to the timing of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan review and Natural England’s objection the Local Plan does not identify enough mitigating land, or Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space.

It was also revealed at Tuesday’s meeting that Waverley has spent more than £500,000 fighting appeals against its planning decisions in the last two years alone – equivalent to 3.5 per cent of the council’s total budget for 2016/17. This includes £51,000 Waverley has been ordered to pay developers in costs for “behaving unreasonably”.


Waverley leader and Upper Hale councillor Julia Potts said: “To see more than £500,000 spent on defending appeals is absolutely horrendous and it’s partly because we don’t have a sound Local Plan.

“Hopefully we are well on the way to that now and can adopt one to ensure appropriate plan-led development. Think what all that money could have been spent on, such as services to vulnerable residents. We need to make sure we invest in planning services and officers. If we don’t we will continue to have issues. We must ensure the Local Plan is adopted as soon as possible.”


Diddling the Disabled?


The picture featured below says it all  about the state of austerity and the priorities  of Waverley’s Tory Councillors!

‘Your Waverley’ has made disabled adaptations to the access to the Pay and Display car parks so they can take the change out of a disabled drivers pocket…

BUT – you wouldn’t Adam and Eve it … the disabled won’t be able to reach the machine from their wheelchairs to flash their cash!


Here at the Waverley Web we ask? Why should the disabled pay for austerity? Councillors had a choice: Why penalise a section of our society who have enough hurdles to cross just getting through their everyday lives?

In terms of parking charges, in addition to a general increase in charges on a proportion of the busiest car parks, three options were considered.

These were:  

  • Sunday charging, overnight charging and charging Blue Badge holders (who had previously been able to park for free, for unlimited periods). So, members opted for the introduction of Blue Badge parking charges in preference to Sunday charging or evening charging.

This is the criteria for applying for a free permit: includes the lower and higher rate of Attendance Allowance in addition to the higher rate of Personal Independence Payment and the higher rate of Disability Living Allowance.

Finally – and you couldn’t make this up – somebody in a wheelchair is still not at the right height to put money in the machine!!

Coming to a flood plain near you?


Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 11.13.28.png












Here at the Waverley Web we can think of a few sites in the borough where homes like these would fit in quite nicely. No names no pack drill! However if may solve the problems of new homes being built on flood plains, but is there some cunning plan for raising existing flood prone properties, whose situation is made worse for the older homes situated around them?Screen Shot 2017-10-02 at 17.55.16

Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 11.14.35.png

The 65-tonne building will have a steel frame and sit on a steel ring beam instead of normal foundations.

It will have eight mechanical jacks powered by a central motor, gear box and drive shafts to lift the whole thing up in less than five minutes.

No-one will live there as engineers spend four years testing the design. If it were built for real occupants, then they would have to leave their home while it is held above ground.

Thousands of elevated houses could be built in high flood-risk areas if the experiment is successful. The costs of the hi-tech equipment would be offset by the relatively lower cost of such land, said Larkfleet Homes, the developer behind the idea.

Chief executive Karl Hick said: ‘We have planning permission to build an experimental house that could rise on jacks above flood waters, effectively eliminating the risk of flood damage.


A spokesman for the Lincolnshire-based firm added: ‘As far as we know, this is the first project of its kind in the world. It seems so obvious really.’ The one-off house will be built in a field by the River Welland in Weston Hills, near Spalding.

Solar roof panels and a battery mean it will have a constant electricity supply while water and sewage will remain connected with hoses.

The planning permission expires in 2022 when the house will be dismantled but the modular design means it could be rebuilt on another site.

Mr Hick added: ‘The technology is a one-off and therefore likely to be quite expensive but if the system goes into production the costs would certainly come down. The overall cost on some sites may be lower because of the reduced land price.’

If the design succeeds, then insurers will also gain by avoiding huge payouts for flood damage.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Members of Waverley’s senior planners have ridden roughshod over the people of Cranleigh … AGAIN!


Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee trampled over the views of local people, including parish leaders and approved another extension of Crest Nicholson’s development in Horsham Road.

Despite pouring gallons of crocodile tears  all over  ‘poor Cranleigh residents’ and giving a host of reasons why a Crest’s scheme for 119 houses (69 of which wouldn’t even meet the national housing standards and were  described as ” an old fashioned council housing estate’)  should be refused), up went their mits approving it  by 12  votes to 6 with 2 abstentions!

Screen Shot 2017-11-27 at 21.10.33

Screen Shot 2017-11-27 at 20.28.39.png

Up goes the hand of Councillor Mike Band (Con, Cranleigh North & Shamley Green) who said – none of us believe anything the statutory consulatees say, but we have to accept it.’ 

So now in addition to the 149 homes already under construction west of Horsham Road – by Crests whose finance director lives just down the road in Wonersh Park, a stones throw from firm supporter councillor Michael ‘ Sleepy’ Goodridge  – it now has the go-ahead for another 119 off just one access. This, despite councillors agreeing that many of the owners of these homes, when built, could be taking on shedloads of problems through a management company’s  onerous responsibilities. These include play areas; roads; common areas; sh*t pit holding tanks, etc.

Screen Shot 2017-11-27 at 21.17.20.png

The developer, who has already shown in Cranleigh, and elsewhere in the area, that it regularly rides roughshod over planning conditions, government guidance on the size, and the design of accommodation, can now remove trees protected by preservation orders, and remove ancient woodland.  Should an accident occur at the access, it will provide no emergency access! All this has the blessing of ‘Your Waverley’s’ planning ‘experts’ and the statutory consultees – Thames Water, and Surrey County Council, the lead flood authority ‘experts’ and highway ‘experts.’

Screen Shot 2017-11-27 at 22.30.23.png

Here’s what the locals said in a ream of objections that could paper the walls of ‘YW’s hallowed halls inside and out: Yet another shedload of housing on its way to Cranleigh? 

And Yes, didn’t we say in the post last week that the scheme  would be approved at  the Waverley Muppet Show! An outfit who would  pave over Cranleigh’s famous cricket common with half a chance, as Liz the Biz Sims, whip, cracks away!

The Cranleigh Parish Council public speaker obviously didn’t think it was worth turning up to oppose yet another development believing that all was cut and dried, and saving his valuable breath deeming that breath is so good for you! Or, has the council imploded?

Screen Shot 2017-11-27 at 21.17.20.png

Cranleigh Councillor Patricia Ellis gave an impassioned speech about how dreadful Cranleigh was being treated, and how awful the scheme was, despite the fact that she had, along with her late husband Brian Ellis colluded with developers in secret meetings for years to have the Crest Nicholson sites included in the Strategic sites of Waverley’s Daft Local Plan. It was councillor Brian Ellis who repeatedly claimed that Cranleigh shops needed more ‘footfall!’ Well Councillor Ellis, if you are looking up, or down on Cranleigh – you certainly got your wish!

However, the woman who took his place as Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council said:

Screen Shot 2017-11-27 at 21.04.28.png But of course, as she has come to realise, despite her repeated protestations about the damaging effect of yet another swathe of countryside going under concrete, the inadequacies of the local infrastructure to accommodate a huge influx of people, and the poor standard and unimaginative design and quality of the homes, no-one takes one blind bit of notice!

As for Cranleigh’s Neighbourhood Plan, and others, including ours here in Farnham – press SEND straight into the bin marked TRASH!








Your Waverley is building ‘affordable’ homes of its own – all two of them!


Two affordable homes in Craneigh is better than non we must admit, but could there be many more just around the corner soon!

Because the Government is now beginning to stamp on developers who are hoarding land…including the Berkeley Bunnies!

Berkeley Homes was  given the go-ahead by a Government Inspector almost two years ago to build 425 homes on parkland in the east of the borough, over 40% would be ‘affordable.’ How many have been built Non! Detailed planning permission was granted at yet another appeal for 55 executive homes, with access of Knowle Lane a month ago.! Let’s hope they keep growing lettuces long enough to feed the Berkeley Bunnies. Because a Government inspector has approved its appeal for burrowing to begin!

Non of the  affordable homes, which are separated from the executive homes, have  seen the light of day, or a brick laid, although to be fair, the planners have received a detailed  application for 18 homes, some of which are, ‘affordable’ accessed off Alfold Road.

Screen Shot 2017-11-26 at 10.18.20.png

Screen Shot 2017-09-27 at 17.05.07.png

Screen Shot 2017-09-27 at 17.05.41.png

The White Paper – which is expected to be published on Tuesday – is anticipated to include new proposals to require developers to complete homes more quickly.

Currently builders lose planning permissions after three years unless work has started. However, they can maintain planning permissions on sites simply by “digging a trench”, sources said. This means that more than 700,000 homes which have been granted planning permission since 2006 are yet to be built. 

Under the new plans permission would be linked to the completion of homes by certain dates, rather than the starting of work.

Developers could have to build quotas of homes by set deadlines as a condition of receiving the planning permission, or be let off paying for new local roads, bridges and community halls – so called Section 106 agreements – if they complete the new homes more quickly.

Oops here  go all those 106 Legal Agreements?

We can hear Dear Denise wailing from over here in the Farnham hop fields. 

Perhaps Waverley residents could meet their Executive? Now there’s a challenge!


If they can do it at Guildford Borough Council then they can do it at ‘Your Waverley’ – can’t they?

Meeting the tail that wags the Waverley dog may be as joyless as a  root canal procedure, but who knows, it may prove to be quite the opposite, and be a real revelation, so why not give it a go?

The Waverley Web team would be there in force of course, hanging from the dusty cornices of the council chamber,  listening intently. We can think of many people over here in Farnham who would love to meet the tail, other than on their doorsteps when there is an election in the offing! Over there in the east of the borough there are quite few souls who might like chew the cud with the council’s Executive too?

So how about it Waverley Borough Council if Guildford Borough Council can met its residents – so can you!


Screen Shot 2017-11-26 at 08.28.15.png

Taken from the amazing Guildford Dragon – the website that reaches the parts of Guildford that others fail to reach.

Yet another shedload of housing on its way to Cranleigh?


Isn’t it strange that Crest Nicholson is taking a leaf out of traders books who charge £1.99 instead of £2 to  make us think it’s cheap?

Last time the developer sought planning permission for housing it asked for 149 – now under construction, and now hot on its heels and at next  week’s  Joint Planning Committee it will surely agree to another 119! But it’s ploy, (which, also avoids an Environmental Impact Assessment) isn’t fooling the residents of Cranleigh New Town.

Because they are royally hacked off at the very thought of yet another shedload of little boxes, covering the countryside of their  once rural village on the Surrey/Sussex border!

BUT – they can console themselves that Cranleigh Chamber of Trade & Commerce is fully behind Cranleigh New Town saying it wants more footfall!

You can watch the meeting on the council’s webcast,  if it’s working,  on Monday at 7pm.

Screen Shot 2017-11-24 at 10.50.44.pngThere are so many local objections, including th Parish Council, to the latest Crest Nicholson scheme for the huge estate between the Downs Link and  rear of 120-132 Horsham Road with buildings like this: that we would need a week to list them: Suffice to say this, and other recent permissions have:

  • Rendered the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan, USELESS!
  • Waverley has ignored local views; Cranleigh has become Waverley’s dumping ground for new homes; Lack of infrastructure, including jobs; sewage treatment; et, etc, etc,

Screen Shot 2017-11-24 at 11.36.46.png

Trees, including ancient woodland has, and is being removed. Previous conditions imposed by the planners have/are being ignored; concerns that roads will not be adopted by Surrey County Counci; application and consultation conducted when residents were away during the summer; councillors intent on pushing everything into the East of the borough; 

Screen Shot 2017-11-24 at 11.36.36.png

Impact on local roads, including the junction of Horsham and Ewhurst Roads will be huge; Still only one access road for 270 homes (Nightingales (an existing development) has three accesses to support 300 homes!

Screen Shot 2017-11-24 at 12.01.19.png

Cranleigh is clogging up with traffic, access onto A281 over one-way bridges! No sixth form education; Sewerage will not cope; more burst pipes? Sh1t pits will be used to monitor flow; lack of car parking and so it goes on…

Screen Shot 2017-11-24 at 11.36.26.pngAnd:Screen Shot 2017-11-24 at 11.55.32.png

And.. as we, at the Waverley Web, have said many times, Dunsfold has its own solar farm generating huge amounts of electricity; a bio-digester, employment; and will have infrastructure including schools to cut down traffic congestion. It  is putting almost £50m into the road network, medical, leisure, and numerous other facilities and  improvements, both there and in Cranleigh! 

And you won’t be surprised to hear that Chief Planning Officer Liz the Biz and her henchmen recommend approval – and you can bet your bottom dollar – it will be GRANTED. How much do you bet Councillors Goodridge and Band will be the first to stick their mits in the air? Cranleigh new town has ARRIVED! Oh! and there’s plenty more land, owned by the Cook family of Vachery, where that came from!

Screen Shot 2017-11-24 at 10.49.44.png

CCS’s flabber is ghasted. But will anyone take one blind bit of notice? – Perhaps the flood insurers might?


Screen Shot 2017-11-20 at 16.18.29.png

Cranleigh Society – “Speaking up for Cranleigh” wherever and whenever we can!

By Richard Bryant on Nov 20, 2017 09:54 am
Since our posting on 6 October we have written to Anne Milton MP, Tom Horwood (Interim MD at Waverley Borough Council) and the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) to confirm our utter amazement and dismay that this application was granted.

We are meeting this morning with Tom Horwood to discuss this matter further.

We asked DCLG to call-in the application on the basis that the Joint Planning Committee Chairman, Cllr Isherwood, refused to allow the members of the JPC to consider the correct flood levels provided by Cllr Hyman and which have been subsequently checked by our expert who confirmed the (higher) levels were 100% correct. The refusal to allow a debate is a fact – have a look at the video of the meeting:


Cllr Isherwood relied heavily on an desktop computer report by a company working on behalf of the developers to the total exclusion of all other primary evidence presented by residents and other councillors. The developer’s representative was allowed unprecedented access to members throughout the entire meeting and sat with officers at the head table and was allowed to speak throughout the discussion of the flooding item, unlike the parish council, residents or the Cranleigh ward member who were only allowed a maximum of 4 minutes.

We take the view that there has been a blatant violation of planning law. 

DCLG refused our call-in request so Anne Milton was then requested to not only push DCLG to reconsider their decision but also involve the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). It was only at the beginning of this year that DEFRA, following the disastrous flooding in the North of England, issued a consultation document asking for submissions on how to reduce the Governments exposure to the ever-increasing cost of flood relief – and here we have another Government Department hell-bent on condoning the granting of planning permission on a flood plain where future serious flooding is a certainty!

Where is the joined up thinking here?

Hopefully we will be able to get some answers  and achieve some joined up thinking from central government but we have to be prepared for inaction so we have already commenced discussions with the Association of British Insurers with a view to having this Thakeham site as a decline risk for flood insurance as Insurers only take on flood risks, not flood certainties.

We here at the Waverley Web applaud the Cranleigh Civic Society and seldom disagree with a word it says. However, we believe the developers will build those properties pictured here on the fields below with higher than normal footings to ensure they DON’T Flood. It’s all the other poor devils who already live around the site that will end up under water!

Why? Because, as the man from the lead flood authority – Surrey County Council told the public – the National Guidelines for Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes – which will be used here to deal with floodwater, are – quite simply,  ‘WOEFUL,’ and have already been proved to be useless elsewhere in Surrey! So, we ask? Where were his NO OBJECTION was put forward when the application was considered?Screen Shot 2017-10-02 at 17.54.56

Wish we, at the Waverley Web, were as well read as the Farnham Herald!


BUT…in future you may need to log on more frequently because, some days we are  posting more than one article…

Just as a matter of interest we know what happened  to the likely lads, but what HAS happened to Farnham’s East Street?

Screen Shot 2016-10-26 at 21.04.43


We would like to add our thanks to you Mr Patrick Webber an all those other Farnham scribes. We publish your letters, because our followers come from all over the Waverley Borough, and it is our view, that we shouldn’t be too parochial. 

Is the Chancellor’s Budget pissing off every MP in Surrey?


With the news that the budget is going to boost housing and accelerate its delivery – is Surrey MP Phillip Hammond really out to upset every other Tory MP in the county today?

Our MP Jeremy S-Hunt has been proudly fighting the government housing numbers since 2005. Wonder  where  the Budget announcements  leave him now?

Back then 12 years ago Jeremy was against small developments on brownfield land – just one house rebuilt to provide two or three dwellings as, in his opinion,  it harmed Waverley’s ‘special character.’
Whilst the Tories abolished the unelected regional assemblies (made up of elected council leaders and staff) which were tasked with planning infrastructure, they forgot to abolish “the housing targets that massively threaten our area”
The good news is that Jeremy had a plan 12 years ago – “There are better ways to tackle the problems of affordable housing than endlessly waving through unpopular new developments.”
Excellent! What happened?

So that is why he colluded with his fellow Waverley MP Annie Milton to seek Sajid Javid’s help to STOP DUNSFOLD – because its a brownfield site and he wants to build all over Waverley’s countryside? Wonder what his views are now? He can always contact us at contact@waverleyweb,org 



Cashing in at Waitrose in Farnham.


Screen Shot 2017-11-21 at 21.35.05.png

Surrey Police is appealing for witnesses following the theft of an ATM machine outside The Hart Waitrose in Farnham in the early hours of this morning, Monday 20 November.

At around 2am two vehicles were seen entering the car park next to the ATM, a dark coloured 4×4 style vehicle and a dark saloon vehicle. It is believed one of the vehicles was used to pull open the ATM housing.

Investigating Officer, Detective Sergeant Ben Green said: “I am keen to hear from anybody who witnessed any suspicious activity in the area or vehicles matching the description in the area around the time of the incident. 

 “A significant amount of money has been stolen and we are determined to trace those responsible and bring them to justice.”

Anybody who witnessed any suspicious activity or with any information is urged to phone 101 quoting 45170128988. 


The emergency, emergency at Godawfulming is over? Isn’t it?


Godalming Town Councillor and former Godalming Mayor Anne Bott has stepped in to the mysteriously vanishing shoes of ex mayor Simon Thornton. No doubt as a former lawyer and town mayor (2015-2016) the Godalming Councillors wanted a safe pair of hands at the helm. The current deputy mayor did not step up – he’s still on work experience. Interestingly Ann Bott was the former Monitoring Officer at Waverley Borough Council under the rule of Christine Pointer, somebody used to dealing with errant Councillors and public complaints. We couldn’t think of a better person to accept the poison chalice of leading Godalming Town Council. Still no answers to  Godalming’s Bermuda Triangle!


Does ‘Godawfulming’ have its own Bermuda Triangle?

Javid has his little joke?




Sajid Javid, the Minister in charge of housing policy – who, infamously, bowed to pressure from Mistress Milton and Jeremy S-Hunt and called in the planning consent for 1800 houses at Dunsfold Park which, in turn, forced Waverley Borough Council to spend circa £250,000 it could ill-afford defending its decision – now has the cheek to tell the worried-well-do they’re ‘not facing up to the reality’ of how the housing crisis affects the young!

What planet is the Minister on?! The Planet Zonk? Our Cranleigh Correspondent nearly choked on his coffee and cornflakes when he read that headline in Friday’s Daily Mail!

If anyone’s ‘not facing up to the reality’ it’s Sajid Javid, he spluttered.

If he doesn’t permit the Dunsfold scheme, which more than meets all the Government’s criteria it will be the biggest abrogation of his own declared policy  – and he should resign. 

If that man is really serious about solving the housing crisis, and genuinely critical of so-called Nimbys, and if he really wants to ‘deliver moral justice’, then he needs to find the courage to stand up to his colleagues, Anne Milton and Jeremy S-Hunt, and tell them to tell the Cash & Clout Brigade that their cheques, whilst welcome, will no longer be permitted to dictate Tory Party Policy.

Oh, the irony of it! Not a million miles away from Waverley – but far enough for no one there to have heard of Dunsfold Park – Mr Javid thinks it’s safe to launch an attack on the very people he and his fellow MPs have been brown-nosing here in Waverley.

Screen Shot 2017-10-02 at 17.55.16It’s an utter disgrace that development of the largest brownfield site in the borough of Waverley was called in whilst Mr Javid and the two local MPs have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the concerns of Cranleigh residents over development which continues apace on greenfield sites that flood!

Never mind Bristol, Mr Javid, what about Waverley?! Why don’t you come down here and see for yourself what’s happening, instead of spoutting piffle from your Ivory Tower? The residents of Awfold, Dudsfold, KerChingfold and Where-Has-all-the-Traffic-Come-from are the spitting image of the people you referred to in your Bristol speech, ‘those who say that there isn’t a problem with housing … that affordability is only a problem for millennials that spend too much on nights out and smashed advocados’ – whatever they might be!’ They’re the people who, as you said, ‘have long-since paid off their own mortgage – they are living in a different world [with their in-out-drives and their Penelope Chilvers]. They’re not facing up to the reality of modern daily life and have no understanding of the modern market.’

All the Waverley Web  can say in response to that is: Et tu, Brute!

Or, in plain English: Is that really what you think, Mr Javid or are you just paying lip service? For our part, we think you do protest too much for, surely, your actions speak louder than any words!

If you want to be taken seriously here in Waverley, then you need to put your money where your mouth is and rubber stamp Waverley Borough Council’s decision to grant planning consent at Dunsfold Park! And… let our  countryside and small villages off the hook!

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 16.21.28

17.11.16 – May promises to build more home more quickly


Sometimes you just have to laugh…don’t you? What a load of rubbish?


Screen Shot 2017-11-09 at 21.23.13.png

We just love getting e-mails from our followers – and this one in particular hit just the right spot with our team, all of whom live in the borough, and are heartily sick of  councils that waste our money and our time with leaflets like the one mentioned below.

We have the correspondent’s  name and address – but chose not to publicise it – just in case in future their rubbish ends up down their garden path. Or do the bin men/women/people,  go up the garden paths any more – ours don’t!

Dear WW
Today I received my leaflet from WBC entitled ‘Could you recycle more?’

Given the chaotic state of rubbish collection/recycling by our 2 waste authorities namely Surrey CC and Waverley BC, they have some cheek!
I should love to recycle more but given the recycling centre cuts to opening times and days (Dorking and Cranleigh) that is not exactly possible so Surrey CC should take the blame there. Even when they are open the system of charging and restrictions as to what can be left is just plain silly and hardly encourages compliance
Re doorstep recycling from WBC – like others I paid for a garden Joanna so that I do not have to comply with their food waste collection. The charge for garden waste collection (brown bins) puts a lot of people off and they bonfire instead. The blue bin for recyclables is always full and the bin men will not take anything not lodged inside! Then of course we have the residual waste option – well until WBC finds a market for all those plastics that their doorstep collection precludes, there is nothing more to be done. Then finally the recyclables options that used to exist in the Cranleigh car parks – all but disappeared yet they were so useful
It would be so helpful if for once WBC took a reality check before sending out such joke titled literature. I guess there is no update on their proposed clothing collection OR indeed the level of fly tipping that now exists across the borough? It would far rather bury that info!

The Royal Surrey County Hospital’s Tax on the sick gets top award!


Despite being warned by our MP and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt not to raise car parking charges, The RSCH and Frimley Park Hospital ignored him – and so have most other hospitals in England.



WELL DONE RSCH! We hereby present the Waverley Web Award for Banking, yes we said… for banking … our dosh! The runner-up is Surrey County Council for charging us to park at Newlands Corner. 

Boasting a minimum parking charge of £4 for up to two hours – which means visitors who stay for only an hour have to pay for two, is seen by SW Surrey Constituency MP Jeremy Hunt as excessive. He is not impressed and has demanded that people should be able to get to hospitals as ‘conveniently and as economically as possible.’ So why then hasn’t the RSCH reduced its charges, and why does it stubbornly refuse Department of Health advice?

Quite simply, because it can – because in an affluent area like Guildford it is assumed that it will not cause undue hardship, and that families visiting sick relatives, or seeking hospital appointments can stump up the cash. But there are numerous pockets of deprivation in the areas which the RSCH serves. It should also be recognised that many patients travel large distances from the rural areas, incurring substantial travelling expenses. We heard from one of our followers travelling from within the Waverley Borough that the cost of travelling to and from the hospital, for just one week, had cost over £50 – almost one-third of their weekly pension! 

There are also 44 hospitals that charge disabled drivers to park, and this includes the RSCH and Frimley Park.

If Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland patients can park for nothing – why can’t we have our charges reduced, even if only slightly? 

Wonder why it costs so much to Park at The Royal Surrey Hospital in Guildford?


A development dubbed as ‘regimental and suburban’ in a rural village has to go back to the drawing board.


If you can bear the stop, start, stop, start then complete STOP of ‘Your Waverley’s useless webcast – you can watch it above.

Can this council get even the most basic methods of communication right? If it spent our taxpayers’ money on this supposedly new webcast – then ask for it  back!

Screen Shot 2017-11-17 at 09.03.47.pngOr take it  back to Rumbelows or the shark on E-Bay  who palmed it off on you.  Because the handful of viewing public, that you do manage to engage, are heartily sick of this shambles that you call a Webcast! Or is that the game-plan – you want us all to give up?

Screen Shot 2017-11-15 at 19.27.40.png


Screen Shot 2017-11-15 at 19.21.49.png

Screen Shot 2017-11-15 at 19.27.47.png


No Sound – just a static picture. Poor old Councillor Kevin Deanus (Conservative Alfold) who bared his teeth and his soul in his efforts to prevent the rural village of Alfold’s green and pleasant land from being covered in tarmac and concrete by Cala Homes. But unfortunately we could hear only snippets.  Please, for your own sake and the sake of the sick and fed up public PC Plod tell them to get a decent webcast. Or, just go behind closed doors like you do on the Executive!

We here at the Waverley Web commend Councillors Deanus and his Dunsfold mate Councillor Gray, for fighting that poor little village’s corner. They opposed  not just the Crap*y design but the fact the Sh1t is going to Loxwood and Southern Water was not even notified. They have 40-odd new Antler Homes in Loxwood happening at a rate of knots  surely the impact of that and Sweeters Copse should have been thought about. Everyone is beginning to think we are  living in LA LA land? To add insult to injury the officers apologised  for calling the affordable homes – ‘ADORABLE HOMES!’

How dare Chief Planning Officer Liz the Biz Sims get out her stick and wave it around the council chamber like a demented  gnat to drag them kicking and screaming into line. How dare she insult the villagers of Alfold, who, we know, because they write to us,  care passionately about their village,   describe Alfold as having homes of little  merit, not in a conservation area, or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and are among other similarly ordinary properties.

She claimed  that compared to  other properties around those proposed at Sweeters Copse, Loxwood Road those proposed were – “actually better than those that  already exist, and the developers have done enough to reflect the character of the area”! 

We could hear the gasps of disgust from ‘Disgusted of Alfold’ all the way over here in the West of the borough, where developments of similar mediocre design have already been turned down – Baker Oates for one!! Has she ever listened to that song… Little boxes, made out of tricky tacky and they all look just the same?

Well,  Bossy Breeches! Take it from the parish council, and those  councillors who turned up!   They don’t like the idea of three storey blocks of flats being plonked into a field in a rural village, surrounded by concrete and tarmac, with roads leading into the remainder of the site in preparation  for  an appeal decision for another 120 homes.   Neither do they want, what one a councillor described as a  ‘ghetto” of affordable homes too small to live in,  with a play area so far away from homes where  children  cannot be seen or heard.

And as for your officers’ acceptance, that,  if Thames Water is satisfied that Alfold’s poo can be  sent across the county boundary to Loxwood, Sussex,  without any proper consultation with Southern Water –  think again BB!   What is it about flooding and sewage that you just don’t seem understand? Or don’t they have those sort of problems in Munstead  where you live? Perhaps no-one told you that Alfold doesn’t have a school, Dunsfold doesn’t have a school and the Loxwood school is bursting at the seams, according to our followers? It’s called Infrastructure!

As Farnham Residents’ Councillor Jerry Hyman put it so succinctly: Building town houses is  not  appropriate in a village; not consulting properly with the statutory agencies is  inappropriate,  and neither is it appropriate to put the Cranleigh Design Statement in the Agenda papers for the village of Alfold!  He said Alfold was  not Cranleigh! He said had  anyone  considered  that if Dunsfold Park  was not approved (by the Secretary of State after being called in by MP’s Anne Milton and Jeremy Hunt) that all the children from Alfold’s new developments would have to travel into Cranleigh!

 You are supposed to be PLANNERS – yes PLANNERS – which means you should be persuading developers to properly PLAN properties fit for future generations, with homes of which they, and the community, can be proud and in areas where there a decent services. Or is Liz the Biz pinning all her hopes on ALL Alfold/Dunsfold’s appeals being granted – so she can welcome ALDUNFOLD New town?

Before the ink was even dry on our post we received this:

Well Done Kevin
You did your best – Shame about the shocking Transmission – Most of it was in re-load mode at the beginning when you were speaking we have Fibre to the Home and 38.71/Mbps so no reason other than they are not transmitting properly – deliberately – I can screen Movies better than this! – The fact that the Camera was on you and Cllr Gray – was appalling – You didn’t know half the time who was speaking. I am just so fed up with the lot of them. Glad you got a Deferral – But I was disappointed it was only on the amount of Hard Standing and the location of the LEAP/Gas Storage

Design and Size of the affordable housing should have been included – Sorry but I am rather disappointed as ever in the rest of the JPC – and considering how many “voices” I could hear but not see – there was a lot of support for a refusal.

Finally not one councillor mentioned the fact the Archaeological Report could not be downloaded from the Planning Website – Just errors – May mean nothing but with the planners who knows??
All the best

Needless to say all the usual culprits wanted to approve the application but they were outnumbered, and it was agreed to defer the application. In other words – ‘Could do better!’

Let’s hope they keep growing lettuces long enough to feed the Berkeley Bunnies. Because a Government inspector has approved its appeal for burrowing to begin!


lettus begin..




Those of our readers who aren’t familiar with Cranleigh New Town probably don’t know that, once upon a time, half the nation’s lettuces were  grown there, or so we are told by the locals! Or, rather, they were grown there until the Lettuce King, who owned Cranleigh Nurseries in Alfold Road, decided to become a developer and, aided and abetted by Waverley Planners, develop 265 homes!

You couldn’t make it up! Good quality agricultural land, providing squillions of lettuce and employment is frittered away on housing whilst just a hop, skip and a jump away an under-developed brownfield site that could provide 1800 homes is called in by the Secretary of State! Where was Mistress Milton when the nation’s lettuces were under threat? Busy tongue lashing Gavin Barwell to do the bidding of the Cash & Clout brigade she spends most of her time brown-nosing. Never mind that Dunsfold Park isn’t in her constituency and West Cranleigh Nurseries is.  M M isn’t one to let a little inconvenience  like that stand between her and the C & C Brigade’s coveted cheques!

Meanwhile, just across the Alfold Road,  new access roads have been constructed to serve the first 18 of a swathe of 425 Berkeley Homes.  Another 55 executive homes, which are part of the same development is accessed  from Knowle Lane, Cranleigh, and it is this that is the subject of the latest appeal decision.

You couldn’t make it up! Yes, we know we’ve already said that but it’s worth repeating! Cranleigh New Town – formely known as a village – is fast becoming a building site! Not that there’s anything unusual about that these days. Over here in Farnham, we’re up to our eyeballs in concrete mixers … but we kind of expected that, as we do at least have a railway station!

Local councillors refused to give the go-ahead in February for the detailed design and layout of the 55 Executive £1M+ homes, believing the three-storey entrance blocks leading onto the site were entirely “inappropriate in a rural lane”.

here’s what they said then and why the BB’s went to appeal: Oh! Carole!

But not for much longer … because a Government Inspector  has today allowed Berkeleys’ appeal, making Waverley Planners more frightened  than ever about  turning anything down. Talk about a Wake-up Call. The Inspector might as well have issued a press release: Calling all developers! Cranleigh is open for business! Bring it on! Let’s carpet over all our green fields!

Now Councillor Carole Cockburn can sit smugly by and watch all those red faces as they hear that their protestations have fallen on deaf ears! ‘I told you so’ we hear her cry!

Oh! just for interest – the men who chopped down the ancient woodland on this, and an adjacent site, said if made them feel ‘physically sick’ as did digging a hole to move badgers onto it, only to come back later to find their new home filled with water! Still there won’t be bunnies there much longer either, well at least, not the wild ones!

Here’s why councillors refused the application:

Screen Shot 2017-11-15 at 18.39.18.png

and here’s the outline for the next phase of the next shedload of housing in Elmbridge.Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 20.33.28.pngScreen Shot 2017-09-07 at 20.45.14.png

Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 20.38.55.png


Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 21.05.18.png

Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 21.29.36.png

Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 21.37.31.png

Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 21.40.27.png



Numerous empty nests in ‘Your Waverley?’ But there will be less birds and more nests in Alfold if the planners get their way today.


The urbanisation of small rural villages appears to be the order of the day in ‘New Waverley!’

Villages which have retained their rural feel until now, could soon be lit up at night, and undergo a radical character change.

The reserved matters,  design, landscaping, etc, for the first phase of 55 of the 120 home development  at Sweeters Copse, Loxwood Road,  granted two years ago, goes before Waverley Planners today Wednesday. And despite strong objection from Alfold Parish Council the officers have recommended approval – no surprise there then!  

A previous  scheme included an infants school, shop and other facilities but these have all been dumped by the applicants. Presumably because they are hanging their hopes on Dunsfold aerodrome being given the go-ahead by the Secretary of State. If it doesn’t, where do Alfold’s children go to school? Presumably Cranleigh?

The parish council heard recently that there would be no objection from the lead flood authority as Thames Water was satisfied that when remedial flood work was undertaken on five homes in Clappers Meadow, it would alleviate  any potential flooding and sewage problems at Sweeters Copse. 

No problem there then – prevent flooding in five homes  equals = flood relief for 55 or even 120!

Screen Shot 2017-11-14 at 17.13.59.pngThe applicant – I Humble – who is obviously anything but – wants to build apartment blocks like this on an arable field adjoining more arable fields in a rural village on the Surrey/Sussex border:

40% affordable, with on site ‘private drainage’ and connection to the sewers? Whose sewers? Cranleigh sewers or Southern Water sewers in Loxwood?

 This is part of  the Update Sheet-  It is the “Adorable Housing Mix” that gets us and Alfold residents laughing like drains! Except most of their drains are overflowing!

Screen Shot 2017-11-14 at 20.33.17.png

The on-site Waste Water treatment facility has now been removed – So does that men they will be pumping the Sh1t from 55 New homes into the Local Village Network – presumably to Loxwood? Which has to cope with its new Antler Homes development – Or maybe to Cranleigh’s overloaded STW 5 miles away, no  fun there then for the beleaguered residents of Elmbridge!

Screen Shot 2017-11-14 at 17.13.43.pngScreen Shot 2017-11-14 at 17.06.24.png

Here’s what the parish council has to say…

The design gives the impression of an urban development, not consistent with a development within a rural village.

The submitted Design and Access Statement frequently refers to Cranleigh and the Cranleigh Design Statement. There is no mention of the Alfold Housing Rural Initiative. The proposal does not comply with Policy D4.

Whilst the Parish Council notes that the design is similar to that of the applicant’s scheme at Amlets Lane, it is not suitable for a country village.

The Parish Council feel that the applicant is missing an opportunity to satisfy the national demand. This is an opportunity to design a rural village settlement with a soft impact on the surrounding village. The scheme proposes street scenes with rows of houses.

In terms of the design, the Parish Council consider the following:

  •   Not only are the houses of an urban style, they are bland and, in particular, it is inappropriate to have 2.5 storeys for apartments in a rural village.
  •   There are no bungalows, which are sought after in the village.
  •   Although the parking provisions meet the required minimum, they’re inadequate in the circumstances. It is inevitable with the development being in an area with very limited public transport, that there will be a strong demand by each of the households for two or more vehicles. The Parish Council notes the provision of 22 garages which are incorporated into the parking numbers, but in reality the garages are more likely to be used for

storage as there is little provision for storage in the dwellings. The Parish Council would challenge the width of the estate road as it is inevitable that parking will take place which will restrict use of the road.

  •   Street lighting would have an additional urbanising effect which clashes with the wishes of the village for no street lighting (Rural Initiative). The consequence of installing lighting in one particular area will exacerbate darkness of the unlit areas.

  •   Although there is provision for a play area, it is located at the edge of the development. Modern society wants children to play outside but in view of the houses. It would be sensible and more in keeping with the ‘village hamlet’ to have amenity and play areas as a central feature.
  •   The Parish Council notes that there is a proposal for a management company. This must be set up in a way as to ensure that it continues to exist in the future. The Parish Council notes the temporary bin area. It is presumed that this is for the flats only and there would be sufficient regulations to ensure it is not used permanently.
  •   Concern is raised by the village as to the generation of noise from the development.The Parish Council accepts that there has been some attempt to meet their original concerns, but there are still outstanding points of concern. As such, the Parish Council maintains their objection to the application.

Screen Shot 2017-11-14 at 17.02.58.png

Since the report was printed – The primary education contribution has been reduced by £39,940!

Officers consider, “that the proposed development incorporates a good layout which would respect the character of the area and allow for a safe and attractive living environment”. Even though they admit, in the paragraph below taken from the report that  8 homes don’t  meet the National Space Standards!

Screen Shot 2017-11-14 at 20.44.14.png

and here’s an article about Your Waverley’s empty nests!

16.12.08 – Scandal of Waverly’s empty homes

Will we soon be … ‘hanging on the telephone?’


In its herculean efforts to plug a £2.8m black hole in its finances “Your Waverley’ is leaving no stone unturned in its search for ways of making savings.

So in future – rather than having friendly Brenda/Bertha or Bert saying a cheery ‘Waverley Borough Council, Good morning how can I help you? We may be met by Press 1 for…? Or Press 110 for…?

When the idea was posed to members of Waverley’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee recently, councillors didn’t exactly fall over each other in the rush to support the idea.

 Councillor Stephen Mulliner  said his golf club had introduced an automated telephone system  with only seven numbers, ‘and some of us are losing the will to live.’

Officers explained, if changes were implemented under the new Strategic Strategy direction  promoted by consultants  Cratus – a group of consultants working for a London borough,  now  nicknamed Cretinus by  Waverley councillors underwhelmed by its suggestions,  it would take a lot of thought.

He said there were  110 different services within Waverley, but only four or five areas fielded most of the calls. ‘So we are working on it.’ But our total staff savings, by dispensing with four posts,  could be between £75/125,000 a year.

When concerns were expressed by Councillor Jerry Hyman that changes in technology could cause a few problems for Waverley’s older residents, Councillor Mulliner said that ‘only time would take care of that, but I do admit we have a problem in communicating with some of our more elderly residents.’


Might it be a good idea to log into ‘Your Waverley’s’ webcast tonight?


For the past year Waverley Council’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee business meetings, have, in our humble opinion,  produced more debate, more scrutiny, and more examination than ever before. 

For the first time these O & S committees are doing what it says on the tin,  enabling  ‘backbench’ councillors to work as they should – in public and in the public interest.

There is a sea change at Your Waverley – because now, for the first time for many years, councillors are beginning… don’t hold your breath, we only said… beginning to hold the powerful EXECUTIVE to account.

There’s an easy way to judge whether the decisions of the  Executive have been made long before a debate in public, in other words in secret. If it’s over in less than an hour, with no real discussion, then the chances are the real decisions were made beforehand in secret.

We have viewed a few Executive meetings  – 30mins, 40 mins, and the most recent Special Executive, 6 mins 48 seconds! Hardly time for the public to get their bums on seats?meetinginprogress.png


 By the way, no doubt  the excuse will be –  that it is in the public interest for us NOT to hear.  The favourite catch-all phrase for denying information is that it is commercially sensitive and then the doors are slammed shut. And of course, they can discuss any other matters they wish away from our prying eyes … like why Godalming Town Mayor and WBC Councillor Simon Thornton has resigned? Has sleaze found its way in Your Waverley’s ranks, we wonder?

If only ten  people – all from the same party – hold the real power – then let’s just have an EXECUTIVE and save all the money spent on the other 47 councillors. That would go some  way towards  helping to save that £2.8m ‘Your Waverley’ needs to balance the books!

So let’s see tonight if our scrutineers are able to  properly scrutinise?

Because some of the subjects included are:

  • The Farnham Air Quality Scam Investigation up-date. 
  • The Local Plan
  • The introduction of and charging structure for – CIL – Community Infrastructure Levy which  developers will have to pay once the Local Plan has been adopted.






Oh Deidre – a year is a long time in politics isn’t it?


Ewhurst’s Mrs Deidre Lay is no slouch when it comes to writing to the local papers – and good on you girl… at least you put pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard… and have your say. But – and here’s the BIG… BUT?

You have been opposing development on brownfield sites for as long as the Waverley Web has been in existence – that is… until the Big D’s started to infiltrate your leafy patch in the Surrey Hills!

Now, we support you all the way in fighting for your green, green, grass of home –  but have you now changed your mind – and Brownfield is best? Funny isn’t it – how that now so much of the countryside in the borough is under threat, that everyone wants development at DUNSFOLD – except MP’s Anne Milton and Jeremy Hunt!

Lay…ing into “Your Waverley”

Screen Shot 2017-10-31 at 11.22.48.png

Nine months ago..Screen Shot 2017-11-07 at 17.05.02

Screen Shot 2017-11-07 at 17.21.40.png

Screen Shot 2017-11-07 at 16.45.40.png

There are more than birds in Badshot Lea woods!


Our beautiful community nature reserve at Tices Meadow, popular with twitchers, has the residents of Badshot Lea in Farnham twitching with anger at the arrival of travellers.

Screen Shot 2017-11-11 at 10.35.51.png

May we here at the Waverley Web, respectfully suggest that if they want B&B in a bird spotting paradise to try this one out for size?

Screen Shot 2017-11-11 at 10.41.58.png

SAD – Advertiser?


Screen Shot 2017-11-09 at 14.27.32.png

With everything that’s going on in the county at the moment, one can’t help wondering what on earth the News Editor of the Surrey Ad was thinking when he/she decided that a story about a charity fundraising event – not TOP GEAR, is relocating from Dunsfold Park to the Midlandsin was sufficiently interesting to make it headline news in the Cranleigh edition of the paper this week? 

Far more interesting – not to mention life-changing – as far as Cranleigh residents are concerned is the news reported on Page 4 – YES, we did say Page 4! – of the paper that plans were  approved (nearly a month ago!) for the Thakeham Thugs application to build 54 homes on a floodplain. The Cranleigh Society is incandescent about the decision and on any other day of the week that would and should be headlining the Cranleigh edition of the Surrey Ad.

As our correspondent, Cranky-of-Cranleigh, asked when pointing this out to us, ‘Is it just me or does the Surrey Ad take a surprisingly anti-Dunsfold Park tack whenever the opportunity arises?’

Actually it’s no surprise,  Cranky-of-Cranleigh. Did you not know that one Rupert Howell, Development Director at Trinity Mirror Group, lives in a big house on the edge of Dunsfold Park? A house he’s been trying, and spectacularly failing, to sell on and off for several years now? It’s widely rumoured locally that Mr Howell blames Dunsfold Park for his failure to sell his £5 million pile … so no surprise that the newspaper he works for relishes having a good poke at Dunsfold Park ‘whenever the opportunity arises’.

And he could well be right! After all, who in their right mind is going to spend £5 million on a house beside a runway?!

With that in mind one would assume that Mr Howell would be a cheer leader for and supporter of housing at Dunsfold Park but, no, we’re reliably informed that, in the past, his wife was a major supporter of Stop Dunsfold Park New Town. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face … Only in the leafy lanes of Surrey …

Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 18.28.41.png

Will our Annie be in for a good drubbing when she holds her next flood forum in Cranleigh on Friday.


There are some pretty pi**ed off people living in the East of the borough –  so we are led to believe.

It may be quite a relief for MP Anne Milton to be well-out of the Tory Whips Office, where she once  presided, but she might find herself in a hot seat when she chairs a Public Flood Forum in Cranleigh on Friday.

And… you can’t blame the residents because here is just one of the ‘greenfield’ sites soon to be developed!

WHY? Because Mistress Milton called in the brownfield application and halted  building on Dunsfold aerodrome and now homes are spreading like wildfire in Waverley’s  countryside. Including on flood plains!


Screen Shot 2017-10-02 at 17.55.16

 Here’s a message from the Cranleigh Civic Society which is doing everything it can.  
But of course, the meeting will be held at a time when most of us are working!


 The venue is The Band Room  in Village Way, Cranleigh, and the meeting starts at 10:30 am

This is the second  meeting of Cranleigh Flood Forum chaired by Anne Milton MP.  The issues Cranleigh Civic Society wishes to discuss include:

  • Thakeham Homes, Elmbridge Road Planning Permission
  • Illegal river dredging
  • Water Quality (Cranleigh Waters)
  • Asbestos Cement drinking water pipes
  • Flood Risk in general

Please attend this meeting if you can. It is open to all Cranleigh residents, not just Cranleigh Civic Society members!

Please speak to your friends and neighbours as the more people who attend the more we can demonstrate the serious concerns we have in Cranleigh about the over development of our village and problems that lie ahead.



Does ‘Godawfulming’ have its own Bermuda Triangle?


Could it be that the town dubbed ‘Godawfulming,’ due to shop and business  closures, may have its very own Bermuda Triangle?

If you sneeze there’s sleaze all around us at present!  So the resignation of the Town Clerk in April, the decision not to hold  planning meetings and now the sudden resignation of Godalming’s  Mayor, and Waverley Borough Councillor, Simon Thornton has everyone wondering WHAT’S GOING ON?

godalming Bermuda triangle.jpg



Does Councillor Peter Isherwood – Chairman of ‘Your Waverley’s’ influential Joint Planning Committee need to go to Specsavers? Or, is that awful decision to grant planning permission on a flood plain in Cranleigh just a week earlier still playing on his conscience?

Thakeham’s home – but certainly not dry!



Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 12.15.17.png

And – here’s what a Cranleigh councillor thinks of ‘Your Waverley’s’ bid to jump on the property speculator band wagon!


Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 11.30.23.png

We would have preferred to give you Councillor Stennett’s thoughts on the Value for Money Exercise Live from  the Webcast. But we have waited a whole week for the webcast video to go up – and we are still waiting… WONDER WHY?

Section here. Councillor Stewart Stennett Webcast Clip:  NOT AVAILABLE.


It couldn’t possibly be that the Waverley Web is just getting too hot to handle?


The committee was considering A consultant’s Report by Cratus (another London borough) – cost ( ? ) which was described by Councillor Nick Holder (Dunsfold) as , “a   load of gobbledygook and, full of stuff I can’t understand.” He claimed it came to no conclusions, on how to solve the funding crisis. “I can’t find any new ideas,on how to save £2.8m over the next three years?”

Councillor Stephen Mulliner – when speaking about other councils entering the property investment  arena – said he was concerned that THEY, (other councils) were far further along the path than ‘Your Waverley’ now wanted to go along!  In other words  that ‘YW – had missed the boat!

Farnham Residents’ Councillor Gerry Hyman said residents were becoming increasingly sceptical about the prospect of the council property speculating. But the minute he queried the council’s reliance  on receiving nearly £1m a year from the Brightwells development, the chairman promptly shut him up!  Others said the council would have to decide which services it would provide in future – but there was considerable confusion among officers when asked what the definition of ‘discretionary’  and ‘non discretionary’  services actually were!

In other words, the services they have a statutory obligation to provide, and those services they can, choose to provide.

The officer’s response was that there was, no clear definition!

Chairman Mike Band said: There is a clear message that  the Executive and officers have  to come up with a  dramatic future strategic vision, because,“we just cannot go on as we are!” 

Councillor Stewart Stennett said he realised there would have to be some very major cost savings. “Something radical needs to happen. But what you are talking about frightens me to death. Listening to you guys talking about buying up whole housing estates and going into real estate! Our funds could disappear rapidly. I have sent loads of e-mails about all this and have not received one single reply. Is this safe, how do we know? It frightens me to death, we are standing on the edge of a cliff here. We have to stay in the realms of what is possible!’

Forgive us here at the Waverley Web, but CSS was speaking very fast – so we may have missed some words. As soon as the webcast goes up – if it goes up – you will be able to hear for yourselves!

Councillor Mulliner believed the council had three options:

  • Outsourcing its administration.
  • Removing non discretionary schemes
  • Improving its investment income

He said, we should also tell the Executive that we are ‘very disappointed’ that the consultants have not come up with some more adventurous strategic ideas and with a specific time-scale.

The final sting in the tail came from Councillor Holder who said he, and others, would like to know how efficient Waverley’s planning department was/is? Do we know we are running the planning department efficiently?

WOW! Now there’s a Question?

HERE’s what SCC intend to do.

Screen Shot 2017-10-30 at 23.09.13.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-30 at 23.09.35.pngHere’s what the Government says: 

Councils playing the property market face crackdown

Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 20.30.56.png


Further appeal following Farncombe woman’s death at Wey Court.


Screen Shot 2017-10-31 at 22.20.59.pngScreen Shot 2017-10-31 at 22.20.28.png

Police enquiries are continuing following the murder of a woman in Farncombe on Sunday morning (October 29, 2017).

Detectives are trying to piece together the events which led to the woman’s death at an address in Wey Court, by Godalming Football Club. They are appealing to anyone with any information to come forward as a matter of urgency.

Officers were called to the address around 9.20am on Sunday following reports of a “concern for safety”.

A woman was found at the address with a serious injury. She was treated at the scene by paramedics but was pronounced dead around 10.10am.

A 57-year-old man, who was at the same address when police arrived, was also found injured. He was arrested on suspicion of murder and taken to hospital where he remains, receiving medical treatment.

Formal identification of the woman is not expected to take place until later this week.

Detective Chief Inspector Jo Hayes from the Surrey and Sussex Major Crime Team, who is leading the investigation, said: “We would like to speak to anyone who saw anyone going into or coming out of the house the night before and the morning of the incident.

“Any information, no matter how insignificant it might seem, could be useful so please get in touch if you think you can help.”

Anyone with any information which could assist their enquiries is asked to contact Surrey Police on 101, quoting incident reference P172

A lovely message posted on the Godalming Community Facebook Page this week from local  Councillor Penny Rivers.

Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 18.38.59.png


Now here’s a bit of a mystery?


 Here’s a little missive from The Taxpayers Alliance all about mileage allowances and how some councils are paying over the odds!

 It would appear, and we may be wrong, we are sure ‘Your Waverley’ will trot out one of its Press Releases on this one, but you will see from a clip of the table below – that Waverley Borough Council employees are paid way over the HMRC recommended rate of 45 pence per mile. They are paid 65 pence per mile. But, from our investigations Waverley Borough Councillors are paid the HMRC rate of just 45 pence per mile.

Well done Waverley Councillors!

Now if you want to make a tiny contribution to the £2.8m in savings you have to find over the next three years to ensure a balanced budget – how’s about dropping that 65p down to nearer the HMRC recommended rate – rather than threatening to remove the £750,000 you give in grants to the voluntary sector. The sector  that is saving you/us the millions of pounds ever year?

Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 09.46.58.png

Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 09.42.05.pngScreen Shot 2017-11-03 at 09.42.57.png

Council Mileage Allowances

October 24, 2017 9:08 AM

Screen Shot 2017-10-30 at 22.50.20.png

Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 09.21.05.png

Screen Shot 2017-11-03 at 09.21.22.png.


Residents in Farnham fighting back!


 This week  a group of Farnham families, determined that the developer – Wates Developments will NOT build on two sides of Waverley Lane in Farnham, have taken their fight to the courts.

Although ‘Your Waverley Planners’ refused the controversial scheme to build 157 homes on the site, the developer appealed the decision. Now despite having waited for more than a year, no decision has been forthcoming. Now, even if a Government Inspector allows the scheme – the Courts could prevent the development going ahead. 

Article from the Farnham Herald.

Screen Shot 2017-10-26 at 11.24.21.pngScreen Shot 2017-10-26 at 11.24.35.png



Is Godawfulming in a Godawfulming – mess?

Screen Shot 2017-10-31 at 20.40.26.png


 Did he jump? Was he pushed? Is he ill?

Why the secrecy?

Here’s yesterday’s post.

Another one bites the dust!

Screen Shot 2017-10-31 at 21.55.03.png

Meanwhile back at the Cranleigh ranch, the thick plottens over the future of Cranleigh Parish Council Chairman Mary Foryszewski. Will Angela Richardson, the seasoned councillor co-opted into the council’s ranks a whole month or so ago, and who has attended an amazing THREE meetings, achieve her palace coup?


Does stabbing people in the back bode well for a future in politics?

Has/will  Annie’s Angie succeed in ensuring the Guildford Conservative Association changes from The Nasty Party into The Stupid Party, by overthrowing Cranleigh’s Boudicca, who has fought tirelessly to protect the countryside from development? Does the Newby, really believe that her efforts to fill the Tory coffers in the eastern villages earns her a place at the  Westminster village?

Will MP Anne Milton’s very own fundraising Tory Tosser do her bidding to ensure the Cranleigh new /town she has helped create,  become the mouthpiece of – yes – you guessed – The Guildford Conservative Association!

Stupid…or what! Haven’t any of these people over in the East heard about the rise and rise of our Farnham Residents over here in the west?

Be careful what you wish for Annie, you could end up with a truly INDEPENDENT borough!


Another one bites the dust!


Godalming Mayor and Waverley Borough Councillor Resigns for ‘personal reasons.’

Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the decision of Godalming Town Council to dispense with planning meetings in future, and the possibility of  ‘Your Waverley’s’ Local Plan  doing away with the Green Belt around the town and building all over Ockford Ridge? Could it?

Why the hell can’t our elected representatives tell us WHY our votes were wasted in Godalming – Haslemere – Farnham – Cranleigh and all those other towns and parishes which are presently imploding due to resignations! Some councils bear no resemblance to those set up three years ago at the local elections. Roll on 2019 – there could be trouble ahead!

Screen Shot 2017-10-30 at 15.10.14.png

This is our last weekend post! While we were writing this Simon Thornton was resigning and the chairman of Cranleigh parish council was fighting to hang on to her chairmanship after Guildford Conservatives said they wanted her OUT!

The Waverley Web hit a nerve with our post yesterday and some of the comments we received prompted  us into thinking about the people who currently represent us on our town, borough and parish councils.

Here’s the post. May be, just may be we won’t need to elect anyone to represent us at ‘Your Waverley’ in the future?

According to  our followers holding planning meetings has all become too much for councillors in Godalming.

‘ A little birdie tells me, that after the 2015 election Town Councillors’ attendance plummeted. They abolished the Planning Committee to reduce the number of meetings they had to attend.’

We also understand there has been a bit of a spat in Haslemere – where three councillors resigned, and in  Alfold, where not a single parish councillor turned out to attend a planning inquiry when e a Government Inspector was asked to consider Thakeham Homes appeal to build almost 600 homes on the Springbok Estate, more than doubling the size of the village!vA decision is expected very soon.

It is not unusual for at least one-third of the members of Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee not to turn up – and attendance at many other committees in and around the borough are also falling.

Starring  ‘The Newby’, councillor from Ewhurst. Presumably she couldn’t get a seat there?

There have been so many resignations in the ‘new town’ council that it’s like a scene from the film, Revolving Doors!

 Newby Angela Richardson,  only recently – very recently – helicoptered in as a  parish councillor,  had the cheek to challenge the authority of Council Chairman   Councillor Mary Foryszewski calling for a vote of no confidence in Mrs F.

Who the hell does she think she is? The woman is barely out of her trainer pants as a parish councillor and already she’s throwing her toys out of the playpen on behalf of the Guildford Tor branch! A little more respect, please, Councillor Richardson, for those who’ve been there, seen it, done it and have the scars to prove it! And, all this angst from someone who lives in Ewhurst! How did that come about?

Apparently over there in the East it is the local Conservative branch that rules the roost and said Richardson is  Anne Milton’s stooge.

Angela, who likes to boast she has a background in Investment Banking Operations – so did Andrea Leadsome and we all know how that turned out! – only moved to the area eight years ago, whereas Councillor Foryszewski has been a Waverley resident for 17 years and a borough councillor for eight, or is it more?

But Councillor Foryszewski – AKA ‘The Gob’ on account of her Brummy accent and refusal to be quashed by anyone (and, boy, have they tried!) is more than a match for Newby.

The mutter on the party grapevine is that Anne Milton, in Henry II mode, flew into a panic, when her funding was threatened by the Cash & Clout brigade, over her abject failure to get Councillor Foryszewski and the Cranleigh renegades to tow the party line in relation to no development at Dunsfold, uttered the fatal words, “Who will rid me of this [meddlesome woman]?” On hearing this, Angela, who has a flair for amateur dramatics and is a loyal supporter of Mistress Milton – whom she hopes to supplant one day in the not too distant future – sprung into action and, launched her first salvo in what she expects to be a short and bloodless coup.

All we can say is watch your back Mistress Milton for, as sure as eggs is eggs, what goes around comes around! Your turn next …

The Newby, Cranleigh’s answer to Angela Merkel, has her set her sights on your seat and she thinks she’s on the fast-track:

1. Next stop Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council – once she’s ousted Councillor F?
2. Next step Surrey County Council – she’ll have no trouble routing the dull-as-ditch-water Andrew Povey
3. Then, before you know it, she’ll be stepping into your shoes in the parliamentary ring.

OK, they’re not as pretty as Theresa May’s R&B kitten heels but given The Newby’s penchant for stabbing her so-called colleagues in the back no doubt Councillor Richardson prefers killer heels!

We’ve heard the locals are saying – Come back Dom McAll, all is forgiven!

May be, just may be we won’t need to elect anyone to represent us at ‘Your Waverley’ in the future?

May be, just may be we won’t need to elect anyone to represent us at ‘Your Waverley’ in the future?


Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 10.20.29.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 10.20.46.png


If these recommendations are adopted the gentleman on the far left – Councillor Kevin Deanus – won’t get a say in what happens in his village!

In a  report, written by the former policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, Sir Mark Boleat, Chairman of The Housing & Finance Institute, has called  for a radical planning shake-up to solve the  housing crisis.
A key recommendation is to “change radically the planning system to ensure the bias against development is significantly reduced.”

The report says that elected members “are often put in a near-impossible position” in that they “have been elected and need to be re-elected and therefore are responsive to their electorates, who invariably are opposed to developments.”

It says that it “would be more sensible for the decision to be taken by a panel excluding the local members on the grounds that they are conflicted”.

“Those members would be able to have their say to the panel, properly representing the views of their constituents,” the report says, “but it would be for the panel to decide.”

The document claims  that  “many councillors would welcome such an approach, as all too often they feel they need to be seen to be supporting the prevailing vocal view even if they know that a development is desirable”.

Other recommendations include:

  •  There should be a review of policy on green belt land “such that land that does not meet the popular view of what the green belt is (that is green space accessible by the public) and that is not needed to prevent urban sprawl can be considered for housing use”.
  • Higher densities should be allowed, particularly in central London. The report says that “this does not mean low quality high rise flats – such as were built in the 1960s. It can mean for example more terraced housing, five or six stories in height, similar to much of the housing in Paris”.
  • The section 106 viability assessment process should be simplified. “The current system leads to expensive and time consuming negotiations that can leave everyone dissatisfied.”
  • Planning conditions should be “reduced significantly, costed and deemed to be discharged within seven days of certification by the developer, unless the local authority has clear evidence that the conditions have not been complied with”.

What does C.P.R.E actually stand for, and is Chris Budgen betraying the residents of Waverley?


We here at the Waverley Web are a complete mixtures of ages, gender, and political allegiance and are generally quite a cynical bunch.

Trawling through the Campaign For The Preservation of Rural England website had  us scratching our heads, and under our armpits, with disbelief and we think we have worked out what the initials actually stand for.

Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 15.15.23.png

We’ve said it before and, no doubt, we’ll say it again but

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) has, under the aegis of Chris Budgen, Joint Vice Chairman of CPRE Surrey Waverley District, changed its name to the Campaign for the Prevention of Redevelopment of Everywhere.

On its national website CPRE makes the following statements

• ‘Brownfield land could provide one million homes’ … but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

• ‘We don’t need to sacrifice the countryside when we have brownfield land in our towns and cities that could provide housing’but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

‘Our research, ‘From wasted spaces to living spaces’, found that local authorities have identified enough brownfield land for at least 960,000 homes’ ... but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

• ‘Most recently, we analysed the results of a pilot study into the development of Brownfield Registers. We extrapolated the results from 53 local authorities which suggest that there is space for at least 1 million new homes on brownfield – the equivalent of at least four years supply of housing. This could save thousands of acres of beautiful countryside being lost forever’ but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

• ‘We could make more efficient use of existing sites, for example, by building mixed-use developments’ but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

• ‘We believe the Government should do more to encourage brownfield redevelopment’ but at a local level Chris Budgen insists this shouldn’t include Dunsfold Park
• ‘Local councils and the Government must refuse permission for greenfield sites where there are suitable brownfield sites available’ but at a local level Chris Budgen is only interested in blocking development at Dunsfold Park, but is silent on the countryside being developed -even flood plains!
• ‘Guide local authorities to identify suitable brownfield sites’ but at a local level Chris Budgen insists Dunsfold Park shouldn’t be included

Can someone please explain to us why Mr Budgen’s masters at CPRE  preach the gospel in favour of brownfield development whilst their acolyte is so far off-message he’s not reading from the same book let alone on the same page?

One could be forgiven for thinking that CPRE has failed to bring Chris Budgen to heel for reasons none other than naked greed. If the man had cosied up any closer to the Cash & Clout Brigade – AKA Protect our Little Corner of Waverley – at the recent Public Inquiry into Dunsfold Park’s latest planning application to build houses on the former aerodrome he’d have been sitting on Bob Lies’ knee!

Perhaps  CCB  see CPRE as its plaything, an organisation that exists merely to provide flunkeys – in the shape of Chris Budgen, Tim Harrold, Anthony Isaacs and Colin Hall – to do their bidding because it sounds so much better if CPRE, a nationally recognised institution, is objecting to development than a group of over-privileged NIMBYs, wielding their cheque books like sabres in order to gain clout. KERCHING!

When and how did CPRE Surrey Waverley District become so distant from CPRE nationally?  Does CPRE at a national level realise how their colleagues in the Waverley District are bringing the entire organisation into disrepute?

We thought CPRE was  a serious organisation and  above the pressures of electoral accountability and financial grasping. We undestand from our Cranleigh followers that  Chris Budgen has a personal axe to grind: his family were formerly tenant farmers of the land that now forms part of Dunsfold Aerodrome and both he and his father were employees of Skyways, Hawker Aviation, Hawker Siddeley and BAE but is one man’s sentimentality really enough to fly in the face of the organisation’s oft repeated policy and mantra?

The more we learn of CPRE SWD’s behaviour, the more it stinks! And the more its regional acolytes betray the fine principles of the national organisation the more it becomes glaringly apparent that CPRE SWD  is an embarrassment and a stain on the wider organisation. They need dismantling.

The only excuse for CPRE (SWD)  to object to development on the largest brownfield site in the borough – whilst greenfield sites are being concreted over on an ever increasing scale – is that it’s lost sight of its raison d’etre and is being influenced by those who can contribute to its coffers – he who pays the piper and all that! – when on their own website they are saying:

‘… our latest research reveals that 425,000 houses are planned for protected green fields around many of our towns and cities: a rise of 400% in 5 years. This is the biggest year-on-year increase in proposed development on the Green Belt in two decades.

There is a much better alternative

New housing does not need to be built on treasured Green Belt to provide the affordable homes people need. We have demonstrated there is enough brownfield land available in England to build 1.4 million new homes without taking chunks out of our Green Belt.

Seriously – you couldn’t make it up!

Is another Waverley councillor saying, ‘if you can’t beat them, join them?’


He’s not the first  among ‘Your Waverley’ councillors to join the cash and clout brigade.

Screen Shot 2017-10-24 at 20.56.21.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-24 at 20.56.36.png

and here’s a response a resident received after he had made a complaint!

Dear Ms McQuillan,

A ‘Monitoring’ process which does not investigate information provided anonymously is not fit for purpose and must surely be in direct conflict with the council’s whistleblowing policy?

As I hope you can appreciate, I am not willing to have my identity disclosed to Mr Reynolds as this may prejudice any future planning applications I choose to make.

The Monitoring Officer can easily verify the facts I have reported:

(1) Councillor Reynolds made in a public forum (Facebook) touting for a building plot which was seen by thousands of local residents, including fellow councillors.

(2) Councillor Reynolds has not declared an interest in property development in the WBC register of interests.

The Monitoring Officer should recognise there is a potential breach of the Localism Act which they are duty bound to investigate now it has been brought to their attention.

Your sincerely,

‘A concerned Waverley resident’

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017, MonitoringOfficer <> wrote:
Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email. The Council takes complaints about the conduct of councillors very seriously and considers each one in accordance with its arrangements for dealing with complaints, which are available on our website. The arrangements set out the criteria against which all complaints are considered to assess whether they are valid complaints. Unfortunately, complaints which are submitted anonymously are not normally investigated.

I would be very grateful, therefore, if you could indicate whether you are willing to make your identity known, and if so, would you also be willing for the councillor concerned to be made aware of your identity? Without this, the Monitoring Officer may be unable to investigate the complaint in accordance with the Council’s process. If you have a particular reason why you wish to remain anonymous, the Monitoring Officer is willing to consider this.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards, Emma

Emma McQuillan Democratic Services Manager (Deputy Monitoring Officer)Policy and Governance Direct Line: 01483 523351

You can’t fool me Comrade…


Here’s a comment on one we made earlier.




‘Oh Patsy’ – you are awful… but I like you!







And here’s a comment from one of our Farnham followers…

Who is … ‘The Controller’ of our borough, town and parish councils?

I feel with Christmas all too close, there is room for a black pantomime. It stars Prince Jeremy Hunt who is becoming unpopular with his serfs because his long promised pedestrianisation scheme has not materialised. In comes Fat Fairy Frost to announce that their have been a number of nasty accidents in a far flung corner of his Kingdom called Wrecclesham. The Yokels are calling for a bypass. A group of yokels, the Wrecclesham Residents Association, have worked with the local barons, chancellors and SCC to develop plans, costings etc for forty years and to get it to the top of Farnham’s road list and Prince Jeremy has ignored them since he took over the kingdom. So Fat Fairy Frost and Prince Jeremy scheme together, in secret, to set up a meeting of the Wrecclesham Residents not realising that there was one already. They do not contact the yokels to find out what has already been done. It is a big meeting with Fairy Frost, Prince Jeremy and several of their henchmen taking the lead but the yokels are restricted to short questions and no statements. Suddenly a name change, their group becomes Wrecclesham Village Voices. Could someone have told them that Wrecclesham Residents already exists.
Now Wrecclesham needs a bypass and doesn’t much care how they get it, but we will have to wait patiently for the outcome. Can Prince Jeremy and Fat Fairy Frost do it or will it meet the same fate as the pedestrianisation scheme?



Ignored by ‘Your Waverley’ but Thames Water is forced to recognise there IS a problem with blue asbestos in the East’s water supply!



How does the old adage go:

Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 10.40.16.png


After a long DAVID & GOLIATH type fight by Cranleigh Civic Society, Thames Water has agreed to start replacing Cranleigh’s  asbestos cement drinking water pipes starting in 2018.

Recently one of its members/parish councillor was hauled in front of ‘Your Waverley’s monitoring officer accused of  ‘bullying planning officers’, yes ‘bullying’ and there were we thinking that most of the bully-boy tactics come from Chairman Mao and Liz the Biz – the shove and shunt brigade whose mission is to cover the countryside in concrete, because they couldn’t come up with a LOCAL PLAN!

We don’t actually know how the smack and slap brigade led by Little Hitler – Robin  Taylor punished Brian Freestone, but no doubt someone will tell us sooner or later at …

According to the CCS –

29.6% of the drinking water pipes are old and made from asbestos cement (compared to an average throughout SE England of just 2%).  The design life of these pipes is 50 to 70 years, and as some of these were installed in the early 1960’s, they are starting to decay and burst.

In fact they’ve been busting with monotonous regularity now new developments have commenced.

For almost a year the Society has been banging on about the problems and meeting with Thames Water, to no avail finally Thames Water  carried out tests on samples of burst pipes to determine the composition of the materials used. 

WHAT DID THEY FIND? Yes – you guessed!

 A mixture of white and blue asbestos  …

and,  now ,Thames Water has announced that it will start a programme of replacement in Spring 2018 (they will need the time between now and then for planning and to seek the licences required.

Cranleigh Civic Society says: ‘it is grateful to Thames Water who have been open and helpful in giving advice, and also to them for carrying out tests on the samples of burst pipe.  On the 9th October, Thames Water told us that they have identified over 3 km of pipes to replace, and we are awaiting confirmation from them as to how much of our old asbestos cement network that accounts for, and over what period of time the replacement programme will take place.

Thames Water has advised that it has secured the funding for this project, which comes out of central pot and will not impact on bills locally.

New housing being built in Cranleigh must comply with current Building Regulations that require a minimum 1 bar drinking water pressure provision.  This is because many new houses nowadays are provided with unvented hot water systems, which work on higher pressure than the old “indirect” systems based on a header tank in the attic space.  Over the past three months the number of burst water pipes has increased considerably with over 20 bursts occurring, some leaving residents without water for days at a time.  This has coincided with the building of new housing estates in the village.

‘It is Cranleigh Civic Society’s opinion  that if more new housing estates are connected onto the existing network before Thames Water has finished replacing the old asbestos cement pipes, the number of bursts will increase exponentially, and could raise the risk of more free asbestos fibres entering the drinking water network’.

We think these old asbestos cement pipes in the Cranleigh area should be replaced BEFORE more new houses are connected to the network.

Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 10.43.26.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-23 at 22.13.04.png

Thames Water advised Cranleigh Civic Society on the 20th October that the 3km of asbestos cement pipe that they are replacing in Cranleigh is only one fifth of the total length of the asbestos pipes in the village.

That means that Cranleigh will still have 12km of very old, decaying asbestos cement (AC) drinking water pipes operational in the drinking water network.

Cranleigh Civic Society has written several times to the Government’s Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) asking them to confirm that these old pipes will not be a risk to the health of Cranleigh residents, and we have not received reassurance from them.

The position of Cranleigh Civic Society remains unequivocal. 

We think these very old AC pipes in the Cranleigh area should all be replaced BEFORE any new houses are connected to the network.  We think that the infrastructure should be sorted out by Waverley Borough Council first, particularly in this case where, we believe, it cannot be ruled out that there is a clear and present danger to public health.