Tonight ​The Milford Golf course development will be agreed on a wing and a prayer.


 In readiness for her swan song performance the head planning honcho at Waverley Towers is already buffing up her boots and inserting new studs to kick another unpopular planning application through the goal posts.  Ok, ok, we know it’s a golf course.

The soon-to-be-replaced Betty Boot, who is shortly leaving to play for the Home team – will provide members of the Joint Planning Committee with a thousand reasons why they should support building on the former Green Belt golf course in Milford. Cover a  floodplain  with concrete and 200 homes – 80 of which will be “affordable.” For whom, they will actually be “affordable,” is anyone’s guess? 

You can read WW’s post on details of the scheme here:

Another slice of Waverley’s former Green Belt – about to bite the dust – as planners get set to change the face of Milford?


 In an up-date sheet added to a 109-page report to be presented to the committee – she says there are changes:

Page 75 – In regard to the test set out in Paragraph 55 of the Habitats regulations relating to the granting of a protected species licence.  To clarify, Natural England as the relevant licencing body will apply these tests when determining a licence application. As per relevant and established case law, it is not for Officers or members to carry out its own shadow assessment of this test when determining an application for planning permission.  Officers have made Natural England aware of the presence of protected species on this site and have been provided with a copy of Surrey Wildlife Trust’s response to this application. Natural England has not objected to this application and therefore it is considered reasonable for the Council to proceed on the basis that a licence is not unlikely to be granted if permission is approved. Perhaps she hasn’t read the latest Guardian Newspaper article – about which the Waverley Web has spoken to the journalist for confirmation.

PerhapsWaverley Planners should all read this?

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 18.05.02.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 18.04.41.pngWe will have a bet with you Bett.  Of course, Natural England isn’t going to object because thousands of environmentally important sites across England are coming under threat every day of the week as the government body charged with their care is struggling with understaffing, slashed budgets and increasing workload. 

Natural England has wide-ranging responsibilities protecting and monitoring sensitive sites, including sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and nature reserves, and advising on the environmental impact of new homes and other developments in the planning stages. Its work includes overseeing national parks, paying farmers to protect biodiversity and areas of huge public concern such as air quality and marine plastic waste.

(Well we all know what is going on in Farnham over the air quality scandal.  One former member of staff has been charged and awaits trial, while her line manager has bug****D off to pastures new and a new plump salary!)

But while the activities of NE are being impaired by severe budget cuts and understaffing, Natural England employees and other interested parties have told the Guardian. “These are fantastically passionate staff who are worried that the environment is being affected so badly by these cuts,” one frontline staff member said.

“There will be no turning back the clock” if we allow sensitive sites to be degraded.

The agency’s budget has been cut by more than half in the past decade, from £242m in 2009-10 to £100m for 2017-18. Staff numbers have been slashed from 2,500 to an estimated 1,500.  But worry not Waverley residents – Waverley Planners are “always satisfied” with the comments made by statutory agencies, including Thames Water and the Environment Agency.

Just like the same Tory-led administration, officers and, some  members. were “perfectly satisfied” with Thakeham Homes scheme to build on a floodplain in Cranleigh. Homes that the Association of British Insurers following a recent meeting at the House of Commons with Ministers, is now considering advising its members – not to insure!! 

Perhaps ‘Your Waverley’ will put that up on its Searches Website for future buyers?


Here’s what one of our followers thinks:

As Harold Wilson didn’t say “a week is a long time in planning”

Last week Guildford was jubilant about the Inspector apparently restoring their Green Belt sites.

Yesterday the Government issued its response on using the 2016 ONS figures and entirely predictably rejected this idea ……..see and various government pages. Make what you will of that.

Then as you say, tonight Waverley Borough Council Joint Planning Committee is racing to decide the fate of the application to build up to 200 houses on part of Milford Golf Course. Once again in Waverley, crucial flood risk assessments have been downgraded to matters to be dealt with AFTER planning is granted even though the Soggy SANG makes the FRA additionally complicated.

On top of that yesterday the Government also finally produced the local authority housing delivery figures ie the number of houses which have actually been built by Local Authority Area. That shows both Guilford and Waverley falling below the 95% mark which means (according to the revised National Planning Policy Framework issued last year) they now have to add a 20% buffer to their five year supply!!! No doubt officers will use that as justification tonight for bullying councillors into consenting to the GC site. That seems to me to be a remarkably stupid thing to do when everybody can see this application is highly likely to get mired in long legal wrangles over the restrictive covenant. That could mean delivery of these 200 houses will be held up for ? up to five years which will obviously have a knock on effect on delivery. But according to officers, the restrictive covenant isn’t a planning matter!

Words (nearly) fail me.

Another slice of Waverley’s former Green Belt – about to bite the dust – as planners ​get set to change​ the face of Milford?





Building on flood plains comes as second nature to ‘Your Waverley’ so it is no surprise that land opposite Milford Golf Course has been earmarked to go under concrete.

The 13.28 hectares of land once reserved for golfers and wildlife – and which served to soak up the Wealden clay groundwater – will,  if the planners have their way Tomorrow WEDNESDAY  – provide 200 new homes – 30% ” affordable.” Unless of course when the scheme reaches the detailed stage the affordable home figure is reduced  – or delayed which is happening elsewhere in the borough!  

 Waverley Planners are between a rock and a pile of concrete,  as a Government Inspector – dragged areas of the borough out of the Green Belt before approving the Daft Local Plan.  These included the villages of Elstead, Chiddingfold, Witley and the part of Milford Golf Course now under consideration. He argued there would be…

 “sufficient infrastructure contributions to mitigate the impact of the development.” He also said: “These contributions towards open space, education and improvements to the Downs Link are made to mitigate the effects of the development.”  So where is the contribution to the Downs Link we wonder? 

Was he thinking of the Community Infrastructure Levy Contribution or the 106 Legal Agreement Contribution? 

Because CIL – TO BE INTRODUCED ON MARCH 1 – would provide 7.5m compared with £1.5m  in 106 contributions – so if ‘YW’ wasn’t in such a rush to cover the borough in concrete Milford villagers would at least have trousered £7.5m the same amount of money as the owners of Milford Golf Course – filling at least a few holes in one!

A jubilant Guildford Borough Council has now had it’s precious Green Belt areas re-instated after the same Government Inspector said theirs must go too.

According to the 109-page report –  residents will be forced to use a Board Walk on stilts America style to be provided by the developers to reach the SANG – (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) with their dogs, not on leads but on doggy-stilts! This has to be provided on land in Flood Zone 3 because as it says on the tin – it floods!  These mitigation measures are required on a site within 5km of a SPA – Special Protection Area so you can be sure Cllr Hyman won’t be voting for this one?

Perhaps the homes will be on stilts too – on Flood Plains 1 and, 2. With the green space on Zone 3 and leisure facilities provided in Godalming…more traffic?

But one sentence you will hear repeated over and over again by officers when Stretton Milford Ltd’s scheme is considered by the Joint Planning Committee. The Development will cause…Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 11.27.18.png and:

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 11.23.13 it’s ok to put the SANG in a swamp!

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 11.26.49.png

 Hundreds of objections have poured into Waverley Towers hallowed portals – on everything from the effects on the environment; air quality; traffic congestion; light pollution; flood risk; and the impact on school places – where 1st and middle schools GP surgeries; Dentists and hospital services; are already oversubscribed. 

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 10.53.37.png

So why is Waverley in such a rush – because it admits it has a 5.8-year land supply?  Is it because two recent planning appeals in Farnham have been overturned by the Government because housing supply targets are not being met and Inspectors beg to differ on the land supply?   Developers are slowing down their housebuilding programmes because they can’t sell the homes fast enough.

Is it now a case of …PLANNING BY FEAR? WHICH IS DEVELOPER & GOVERNMENT LED?   So lets all bin the ballot box and give local democracy a decent burial.

Because Waverley will have reached its 11,000 home quota – before 2022 – not 2032 – with some towns and villages reaching their allotted quota already. 

However, you can be assured……. Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 11.23.13

Development should be allowed because of its access to infrastructure – including Milford Railway Station. However, residents claim, the trains have reached the maximum capacity of 12 carriages and the car park cannot cope now, let alone in future,  with cars spewing into Station Road.  And here’s a few more objections on a site which is covered by a Legal Covenant held by a local Solicitor who lives adjacent to the site. A legal matter which could hold up development further?

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 10.55.29.png 

What are the pluses: 200 new homes to satisfy the needs of Woking people – 80 of which will be “affordable,”

The price? By destroying  the rural character to the south of Milford?


Council tax going up and up!


Not, however, what you would have heard if you were listening to Waverley’s Budget Meeting last week – as the Tory administration told the world and his wife and children that the borough was safe in its hands. It claimed it had not increased council tax very often during its stewardship.

White man once again speaks with forked tongue?

Roll up – Roll up for ‘Your Waverley’s Annual Budget Show.

Since 1997 council tax in England as a whole has increased by 57% in real terms. You will see from the map below Waverley Borough Council’s council tax has increased by 88.90%. This information has been collected by the Taxpayers’ Alliance and not by us.

Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.46.51.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-02 at 09.30.31.png

This includes payouts to the staff at Waverley and Surrey County Councils.


Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.47.25.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.48.18.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.49.03.pngScreen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.49.54.png

Is Dunsfold Village’s very own Drill or Drop – on its​​ way?


Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 10.43.00.png

UK Oil & Gas plc has given details of a proposed new well site in Surrey.

The company, which is the major investor at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, says it is preparing to apply for planning permission for exploration at Dunsfold, home of the famous airfield and Top Gear track.

Both of which have been the subject of numerous posts on this site – in the past, present and no doubt in the future. We at the Waverley Web cannot help wondering if the Protect Our Waverley (POW) gang will be up for yet another fight? 

In a letter to residents, living in the village 8 miles south of Guildford UKOG said it wanted to drill and test a hydrocarbon well, to be called Dunsfold-1. If the well were successful, UKOG said it would drill and test a sidetrack, Dunsfold-1Z.

Villagers have been invited to drop into the Dunsfold Village Hall on Wednesday between 3pm and 7pm to hear the news – and ask questions.

Investigations by the Waverley ‘Web have revealed that exploration for gas occurred in nearby Alfold in the 1990s.

The application will be considered By Surrey County Council.


Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 10.43.10.png

190215 UKOG Dunsfold plans

Spanish nurses heading home?


Screen Shot 2018-03-05 at 16.54.34

A bitter pill we may have to swallow? 

NHS trusts are at greater risk of losing Spanish nursing staff over other nationalities under a no-deal Brexit, due to a little-known regulatory problem.


At the moment, Spanish nationals can accrue points from their work in Britain that can later be used on Spain’s public health job exchange. But, under a no-deal Brexit, NHS experience will no longer be recognised in Spain.

HSJ understands concerns are growing that Spanish staff are considering returning to their home country, as too long a stay in the UK could jeopardise their job prospects in Spain.

As of June 2018, the latest date at which data was broken down by nationality, Spanish nurses and health visitors make up 17 per cent (3,370) of the EU NHS nurse workforce in June 2018 – the second highest volume of staff from the EU after Ireland.

NHS Employers confirmed that information has been sent to nurses from the Spanish regulator to confirm that Brexit may have “an impact on their continued registration with the Spanish regulator”.

Joan Pons Lapala, a Spanish nurse who came to work in the UK in 2000 and now a clinical fellow at NHS Digital, said  “Potentially we will have a catastrophe here, as potentially no more Spanish nurses [will] come here and the Spanish nurses already here will leave as we will no longer be able to gain points [to use to secure a job back home].

“It’s not a priority to the UK government but it should be as Spain is a main source of nurses and the issue is being overlooked completely. It is a ticking bomb – it is going to happen.”

Mr Pons Lapala added many of his Spanish colleagues had already left the UK to work in Ireland, which he said is now the “number one choice for Spaniards when it used to be England”.

NHS Employers chief executive Danny Mortimer said: “What we clearly need is certainty for our staff and clarity from regulators and professional bodies – and quickly. The future relationship with the EU will need to set out clearly how professional experience gained in the UK might be recognised by EU member states, and vice versa.”

According to board papers published by Bolton Clinical Commissioning Group, its main acute provider Bolton Foundation Trust may lose its Spanish nursing theatre staff because of the regulatory problem.

The papers said: “Spanish nursing regulators have indicated that they will no longer recognise UK nursing experience for Spanish nationals post-Brexit… and this has meant some of our Spanish nurses in theatres have indicated that they are looking to return to Spain this year.”

The board papers said the trust was already advertising the four posts in anticipation of the staff leaving and are in discussion with a further five nurses.

David Hubert, the secretariat of the EU Network of Nurse Regulators, said: “Spain only recognises professional experience for nurses who practice in the EU. As things stand, if/when the UK leaves the European Union it will become a non-EU country and professional experience obtained in the UK henceforth will not be recognised anymore”.

The issue would be delayed if a transition period is secured but any final deal with the EU would need an agreement between the UK’s and Spain’s regulators to continue to allow the system to operate as it currently does.

A House of Commons briefing paper from October 2018 said the overall number of Spanish EU staff working in the NHS had fallen by 15 per cent between June 2016 and June 2018, which was a sharper fall than other nationalities.

The Department of Health and Social Care said: “In the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, we will seek to put in place arrangements to ensure that nursing qualifications and experience gained within the NHS are recognised in EU member states in the same way that they are in other countries”.

The government was also recently criticised for its new immigration scheme. People from the EU who wish to spend more than three years in the UK will now need to make an “application under the new skills-based future immigration system, which will begin from 2021”.

NHS Providers said the proposals “only add to the uncertainty faced by trusts as they look to recruit and retain the EU staff they need”.

With me,​ it’s all​ or nothing – The Bursar of Cranleigh School warns villagers.


Cranleigh Planners – we use the words with a degree of scepticism – as nobody at ‘Your Waverley takes a  jot of notice what the grass-roots of democracy has to say.  Cranleigh Parish Council has objected to 44 homes being built on a vital wedge of countryside separating the settlement of Rowly from Cranleigh. Land that Waverley asked a Government Inspector to include in the Green Belt.

The Bursar of Cranleigh School told Cranleigh Parish Council’s planning committee, in no uncertain terms – that if the school didn’t get the houses – then it won’t be building new sports facilities.

How about that for a threat?

You can’t have one without the other… so the song goes… 

Needless to say, village leaders voted to support the sports facilities off Horseshoe Lane – but not homes across a vital wedge of the countryside. Land that could open the floodgates to further development along Guildford Road, bringing the settlement of Rowly into Cranleigh New Town. Well, you can be sure Cranleigh School will get at least one vote – Councillor Stewart Stennett – who thanks to his Waverley mates – and against officers’ advice,  has already bagged development in the Green Belt on his own land in Guildford Rd.

Residents’ whose homes surround the new paying facilities are objecting to having floodlit fields and running tracks near their homes.

Our followers over there in the East – tell us, the unctuous Martin Bamford “BB” as he is known locally, has gone out of his way to support the building of these homes –  he is after all the local spokesman for everything concerned with expanding Cranleigh in every direction and controlling the Cranleigh Community Board – from which we and many others have been banned.

The seemingly cash-strapped school -(which boasts fees of around £15/20,000 per term) is joining its equally cash-strapped neighbouring centre of excellence at Godalming’s Charterhouse in joining the property game. Well – everyone else is at it- so why not us the say?

Cranleigh School is in line for a contribution to its new sports facilities from section 106 monies provided by Berkeley Homes. Villagers consider that, if they are going to any local schools, perhaps they should be going to public sports facilities and not to those who educate a mere 7% of British children! Ah! but they do say these are community facilities don’t they – the local hoy poly can rent them, as they do if they want to rent the school’s existing facilities. at a price – and when of course its students have no need of them?

It strikes us, reading  Batty’s paean of praise for Cranleigh School‘a registered charity who are not in this for profit, instead of reinvesting monies into facilities … An asset rich, cash poor charity … Our local schools will benefit greatly from access to a new running track and 4G football pitch, with suitably equipped playing field space …

Not to mention his eulogy to his A2 Dominion pal, Andy Cranleafy, ‘the selected developer, A2D, is not only offering 35% affordable housing but is itself an organisation which reinvests its profits into building affordable housing and managing its existing portfolio …’

Isn’t BB  seriously over-egging his pudding? Put a sock in it do. Everyone in the East knows which side your bread pudding’s buttered and, frankly, we’d all prefer it if you sat down and shut up so we don’t have to keep putting up!

Mind you, if the Dunsfold Developer is reading this, maybe he might consider offering BB  a job as his new local PR … because he and his family speak up for anything and everything connected with – Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust; Cranleigh Chamber of Trade; Cranleigh in Bloom; Knowle `Park Initiative; Rowly Centre;  and the Cranleigh Community Board – which now has a rival because he censors contributions and if he doesn’t like them  – he spikes them!! The new board is Called the Cranleigh Community Group – which is championing opening the old Cranleigh Village Day Hospital and Minor Injuries Unit. Rather than a new multi-million-pound PRIVATE nursing home!

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.53.54.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.56.08.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.59.26.pngScreen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.57.44.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.56.46.png


Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 14.01.08.png

Now here’s an interesting objection from a former Cranleigh School employee – hope his pension’s safe!

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 14.09.23.png

Another little missive.

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 14.02.11.png

Please, Sir – we want more?


Out goes the begging bowl – again… Seems to be the order of the day for the borough’s ever-increasing band of wannabe developers. If at first, you succeed – ask for more?

You may recall that the former Westbrook Mills Offices on Borough Rd, Godalming were once in the sighScreen Shot 2019-01-22 at 13.27.43ts of ‘Your Waverley.’ It once had designs on the building in its efforts to either downsize or perhaps join the development game who knows?

Fancy having the first exclusive view of ‘Your Waverley’s’ proposed new offices in Godalming?

However, it was pipped at the post. The new owners bagged the office building, was given permission for 64 flats then 99 flats and now wants to go up in the world by adding another storey and an extra 24 flats, including seven affordable units – (123). Keep going chaps – maybe next time you can make it up to 150 to keep your heads above water in Flood Zone 3. Let’s hope the occupants can too?

But after Waverley’s central planning committee saw what was intended for the site – they likened the design too – ‘ A 1950’s Russian Hospital; and Wandsworth Prison, which would neither do justice to the site near the Lammas lands or to the town of Godalming.

Cllr Stephan Reynolds called in the application to the Central committee to prevent officers granting consent under their delegated powers. Claiming the Government planning rules which now allowed offices to be converted into residential properties was a retrograde one. “In Godalming, we have now lost a lot of good usable office space, which we cannot do anything about” He described the flat roofs of some of the flats as “horrible, an attempt by the developer to make more money.” Others claimed the officers’ recommendation to approve the scheme was contradicted by much of what they had said in their report – about the bulk, height and massing of such a large and prominent building. Cllr Paul Follows wasn’t impressed: He had concerns over flooding and SANGS and said some flats didn’t meet the national minimum space standards. “I happen to live in one of these sort of conversions and it possibly one of the worst places I have ever had to rent.” Not everyone agreed with him. Cllr Anna James said if people wanted to live in little flats it was up to them – but I don’t like the flats roofs – Wandsworth `prison is more attractive.

AfterScreen Shot 2019-02-13 at 19.41.36.png almost every member of the committee had panned the development for 20 minutes – it was unanimously refused.



GodalmingWestbrookMillsItem B1 WA20181524 – Westbrook Mwestbrookmillsfloodills Borough Road Godalming GU7 2AZ

Roll up – Roll up for ‘Your Waverley’s Annual Budget Show.



There was rapturous applause for speakers, and so many pats on the back, you could be forgiven for thinking we weren’t watching Waverley’s Full Council Annual Budget meeting, but the finals of  Strictly Come Dancing!

Perish the thought that the Tory-controlled council would engage in what one councillor described as “cheap election gimmicks” to pass a balanced budget, which preserves community grants; doesn’t increase car parking charges; builds affordable homes; makes efficiencies, and possibly sweeps Godalming High Street clean every morning before 5 a.m? Not forgetting the new Blightwells Yard development that will bring unbelievable riches and prosperity into Farnham.  With lots of new shops and restaurants.

So that’s the good news. What about the bad? Well, council tax will increase year on year from now to the maximum allowed by the Government. Fees and charges are increased, everything from dancing to dying, and if you need anything from the planning department get your wallet out or butt out!!  

Surely that warranted yet another round of applause?

Waverleys very own Umming bird puffed out her ample chest and reminded us all just how fantastic the Tories were handling our borough, and it was only safe in their hands – just in case any of those perishing little upstarts like Farnham Residents or the solitary Liberal Democrat and Independent get any ideas of something different.

Sadly in one sentence, we counted 15 – yes 15 Umms – from Leader The Potty One – but never mind, for a minute there we seriously thought she was going to get a full row of sixes and a standing ovation. 

But then one little upstart – Cllr Paul Follows  piped up saying: 
”I always enjoy a full council. So many councillors I absolutely never see at anything else. Always nice to see what a genuinely ‘representative’ bunch we all are when we are together like this when the decisions we take impact so many…..

Cheeky or what- don’t you know Cllr PF – that they don’t have to rock up like you – because they are Tories and there are lots of them –   Fifty to your Seven! But they are afraid of your popularity – and its beginning to show.

He raced through his 4 minutes believing he would be cut off in his prime saying –

“Like all councils, we face extreme pressure from government austerity policies and also from the near financial implosion of Surrey County Council – itself an exemplar of failure and mismanagement and a body that will almost certainly continue to push services down the locally government food chain without much of its funding – all the while calling it ‘Partnership’. Shocks we are ill prepared for.

The leader of the council mentioned caring Conservatives? We must have cornered the market on that scarce commodity nationwide then. We’ve seen in Waverley, as elsewhere. – an explosion in the use of food banks,  use of the voluntary sector, in the need for debt management services, in poverty and in homelessness. One wonders how many members here have had to make use of these services or be in that position. And how a tax rise might feel to them if they were. It’s not the tax rise I have a problem with (though to me its need is not sufficiently justified). It’s the context that it sits in.

“Officers have done a fantastic job in trying to paper over the cracks – or more accurately the impending fissures – and for one more year prop up the shop.”

A tax rise to keep things just about as they are. Probably the last time they are able to do this – as the medium-term outlook beyond this year looks extremely bleak. As to electoral gimmicks – one might almost imagine that their current political masters have an election to fight this year and are banking on residents not looking beyond this decision and this year.

The portfolio holder has laid the groundwork for that likely future in his speech – and I do not believe services can be maintained without significant changes locally and nationally. I have little confidence in the income streams generating what is forecast. Opposition councillors Cllr McLeod and Cllr. Beaman have highlighted some examples of this.

Breathless as he waited for Farnham’s Gal to bring down the gavel – he thanked officers Graeme Clark and Peter Vickers for discussing the budget in depth and answering his questions.  Thanked  Cllr Beaman for his chairmanship of the recent scrutiny committee that allowed a serious and civilised opportunity for members to discuss the budget in depth. It was at this session that many of my questions were answered but concerns regarding investment forecasts fees and charges remain.

“It was also a shame that only around 25 of 57 councillors attended that meeting – of which I was one of only two of the 10 councillors representing Godalming wards that attended.” 

Ditto the comment we made earlier Cllr Follows – silly boy! He continued to push his luck by asking questions – to which he received no answers. No change there then!

If I may put to the leader the following questions

Last year I asked the leader to demonstrate how you have engaged with your party at Surrey and more importantly in Parliament to challenge their approach? I ask you that again now. As many of you will again stand under its banner in May one assumes you otherwise agree with their austerity and local government policies?

I would also ask you to explain how, with considerable extra weight and reliance put upon our voluntary sector, also largely as a consequence of Conservative policy, you believe they will cope with making do and eventually with not enough?

How will towns such as Godalming benefit from CIL if they have already met their local plan targets? If they will benefit, how will you achieve that without essentially depriving other areas to do so?

And finally, I ask you to confirm the laughable figure of £34k for Brexit preparation and what it will be used for?

To conclude – For the lack of clarity on fees and charges, my concerns re forecasting and frankly due to impending national and Surrey related-issues that will almost certainly scupper this budget – it is my intent not to support this budget- it is premature and too vulnerable to events..”

At which point Fireman Sam Pritchard pulled out his hose and poured it all over Cllr Follows’ Fireworks.

A tad rich considering his attendance record and the fact his ward’s residents call on Cllr Follows for help.

Will ‘Your Waverley’ follow – Follows and answer his questions?


Probably not – so we will answer for them because it’s quite simple really.


Now the towns and villages right across the borough are reaping the rewards of this failed administration as HGV’s pound along their country roads delivering materials onto green fields to build homes most local people cannot afford. It couldn’t produce a Local Plan – which presently resides with the High Court -awaiting a decision on a challenge – and LP Part 2 which has been postponed – for electoral purposes. Mainly because it proposes too many unpopular sites for development in Haslemere.


CIL  replaces the former 106 legal agreements for securing money for improved infrastructure. 


If developers had waited and paid up it may have gone some way towards compensating for the loss of trees, hedgerows, watercourses, wildlife,  open countryside, floodplains and agricultural land from being sacrificed on their alters. But, why would they do that when they are racing towards the finish-line to trouser profits!

At the Full Council meeting, tomorrow Godalming Councillor Paul Follows is demanding answers to the questions laid out below:


Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 21.25.40.pngScreen Shot 2019-02-11 at 21.26.55

Perhaps we could respectfully suggest that it is not the present leader of Waverley Borough Council that should answer his questions – but the previous incumbent – Councillor Robert – Knowless – Member for Haslemere? And, perhaps one or two others should be resurrected or dragged back into the Chamber too? Because they have cost us dearly.

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 21.44.13.png

Cranleigh residents ask​: Why are we waiting?



For over 20 years a Cranleigh Charity has been collecting public cash – £1.5m and counting – telling donors they are on the verge of getting a new replacement hospital.

That cunning plan was replaced by a Private Nursing Home – to include 20 community beds for Cranleigh people!

That was scrapped for another cunning plan – a private nursing home with 20 beds for the residents of Guildford & Waverley.

Which was scrapped for more of the same but – with an added health workers hostel for Cranleigh health professionals?  Getting the picture? …. Which was then scrapped to provide accommodation for health workers from anywhere, any time any place?

 Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust issued a joint statement with Surrey County Council and NHS Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group in support of the proposed new nursing home and hostel application which was to have been considered by Waverley Planners on 28th January???

So where is it – Does CVHT have yet another cunning plan up its sleeve?

In the meantime – is Cranleigh Parish Council – which handed its land over to the charity for one pound in return for a playing field (The Bruce McKenzie) surrounded by a ransom strip  – having second thoughts? A scheme which had included safe pathways under planning conditions imposed by Waverley 12 years ago, which were never carried out prompting Waverley to consider either enforcement notice against the charity or closing the pitch down.

 We have heard that one parish councillor, former school teacher Rosemary Burbridge, is stomping around Cranleigh calling her colleagues and the parish clerk, rotten for protecting villagers’ interests whilst at the same time holding her own meetings with the developer. Whilst another borough councillor Deputy Mayor of Waverley announced in pre-election members meeting that she intends to support the nursing home scheme – thereby ruling her self out of the debate altogether. To pre-determine, an application before it is considered is against the Joint Planning Committee’s rules.

Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 16.33.42.png

The Charity clearly has a beef with the Dunsfold Developer, landing a sly punch to the kidneys in the final paragraph of their report to the Planners:

Saying ‘Previously the CCG has highlighted concerns to Waverley council about affordable housing in relation to the Dunsfold development. We are delighted that the CVHT has had the foresight to include an affordable accommodation block and are confident that this will be made full use and support local delivery of care.’

Considering the Dunsfold Developer was known to be one of the biggest supporters and contributors to CVHT fundraising until it discovered that its generosity was being diverted into the coffers of a private nursing home and not a new replacement Village Hospital they’d been promised, isn’t that’s a bit rich! Particularly when the so-called Charity – is not providing villagers with what it promised on the tin?  A Day Hospital – with services, which now villagers are calling for in the old village hospital?

In the meantime, we have heard from villagers – that they are calling for a public meeting.





Send your troops into Wonersh Cllr Follows.


Cllr Paul Follows is quite right to be upset that only 18 members of Waverley Borough Council completed a survey on whether councillors believe that the borough’s social housing tenants felt stigmatised. A survey which was prompted by the crass remarks made by Wonersh councillor Michael – GoodRiddance – that no such problem existed. 

What excuse did the other 39 councillors give for not responding – we wonder?

We ask Councillor Goodridge – how would you know about council tenants’ concerns?

Has he ever rocked up on the doorsteps of the one hundred social/council housing tenants of Wonersh?

No – he is far more conversant with the residents of Wonersh Park and one particular resident’s concerns that a  “duck island” in the lake has spoiled his view! We have trawled through the Wonersh Design Statement and can find no mention of council homes! Here’s what it says:

Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 11.01.54.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 09.45.10.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-09 at 09.24.01.pngScreen Shot 2019-02-08 at 09.44.30.png

Recycling Centres – v – Children’s Centres.


Or is County Towers recycling our children’s centres to provide services to the other vulnerable young people they have been failing for years? 

 Community Recycling Centres won the battle to win the hearts and minds of Surrey County Councillors – but only a reprieve until after May’s borough elections – when the axe could fall on them too?

To Dump or not to dump – that is the question?



Surrey’s children’s centres axed due to the political bungling of Surrey’s Tory-controlled council.


And here’s how he who shouts loudest gets results – but perhaps only until the ballot box rings TIME in the boroughs and sends a message to county councillors?

Screen Shot 2019-02-07 at 21.11.12.png
Maybe if everyone with young children had shouted more loudly thousands of young families wouldn’t be facing the imminent closure of their treasured Children’s Centres

While the Waverley Web feels extremely sorry for all the young families that rely on these services, and the dedicated and hardworking staff who run them, sadly the table above reveals the apathy that abounds. Why didn’t more people jump up and down about this retrograde step? A step forced on the county council because it failed numerous Ofsted inspections for its care of our most vulnerable children and young adults. So now the money is being directed at them.

Would more parents have complained if their Mobile Masts were being taken down?

If we have a county council – and borough council for that matter, that can only ensure their Pensions are safe and invest £50m of taxpayers’ money in a shopping development in Farnham and say S*d the rest of us – then people need to start shouting louder in future.   As the axe falls our council taxes are hiked up by both the Waverley borough and Surrey councils and our recycling centres remain – under threat – so do libraries and other vital services.

So what do we do? Shut up and put up – or make the first step to make the first change in May on our Waverley doorsteps?

A pat on the back for councillors who stood firm to improve the Berkeley Bunnies application.


Screen Shot 2019-02-06 at 18.40.50.png

The once green, green grass of home.

Berkeley’s was back in front of the Joint Planning Committee yesterday after councillors dug their heels in before Christmas and refused to heed planning officers’ advice to let the developer build “affordable homes” below decent home standards.

You can read it here:

The Berkeley Bunnies bid to build hutches, not burrows has failed – spectacularly.

At present developers can lob in as many applications for poor quality developments as they like – because although there are National Space Standards for small homes, ‘Your Waverley’ doesn’t have an adopted policy to adhere to them.  We wonder why? 

Perhaps because the Local Plan Part 2 has been delayed – due mainly to an uproar from the very vocal residents of  Haslemere and the May elections – which are making every “wannagoback” and “wannabe” councillor very nervous.

It’s called don’t rock the boat time guys and gals!

So there you are Betty Boot & Co  – Waverley’s so-called planning experts – if you listen to your democratically elected members occasionally,  and seek, you will find – that developers will come to heel if they recognise, local opinion is both fair – and right.

Why would any builder want to build homes for rent, and shared-ownership for those on council housing lists – at below the nation’s minimum technical space standards? Why indeed!  So far, in the East of the borough, there have been hardly any genuinely affordable homes built. We have also heard that developers are slashing prices of new homes, offering incentives, and are only selling a handful, thanks to the Help to Buy Scheme which is costing the British taxpayers £7.5m per day!!

Read it here: Here are some of the ”affordable homes” that have been given consent in the east of the borough by ‘Your Waverley.’

However, Berkeley’s has just shown it will compromise – if it has to. And last night – it had to.

So full marks to councillors who stood their ground – it just shows developers can do it. 

Now, thanks to them –  the main bedroom in the one, two and three-bed homes will be 11.5.sqm and the second bedroom 7.5 sqm.

 Councillors deserve a pat on the back for standing firm, the developer for listening and making improvements,  and the ‘experts should hang their heads in shame.  


Screen Shot 2019-02-06 at 18.39.55.png

Phase 1 – for 55,  million pound + homes is now well underway. Phase 3 was given the go-ahead last night. Phases 3 and 4 – in the middle of the site to complete the 425 homes will follow. Some of which will be three storeys high.


There were some very worrying comments made at the meeting about an Environment Agency’s decision to refuse to support an application on adjacent land in Knowle Park, which is part of measures to relieve possible flooding in an area near this site and other sites which are about to take over 1,000 new homes.  But this will form part of a future post. Watch this space!

Here are some of the ​”affordable homes” that have been given​ consent in the east of the borough by ‘Your Waverley.’


Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 19.58.47

How many of these “affordable homes” have actually been built?

Screen Shot 2018-09-17 at 20.47.05.png

From our calculations – there may be a handful of “affordable homes” completed in these towns and villages. But so far – Zilch – at Maple Lane, Cranleigh; Zilch at Knowle Park, Cranleigh; Zilch at Hewitts Industrial Estate; Zilch in Elmbridge Road; Zilch in Sweeters’ Copse, or Alfold Garden Centre, Alfold; Zilch at Dunsfold Aerodrome; and Zilch at Backward Point, Ewhurst.

As for the Table below – have you noticed any homes under construction at Dunsfold Aerodrome?

No – because The Protect Our Waverley Group and our MP’s Anne Milton and Jeremy Hunt joined together to jeopardise the scheme which was recently given the go-ahead by the High Court.

So it missed its 2015/16 target – missed its 2017/18 target and will most likely miss its 2018/19 target!

Screen Shot 2018-09-30 at 22.48.12

So there you have it, folks.

Had Dunsfold received consent in 2008/9 it would certainly have prevented most of the development around Cranleigh.   For fear of repeating ourselves – now the east gets the worst of both worlds as planning applications steam in! Blame Robert Knowless and Close the Gates for that huge mistake!

But more recently, the challenge by PoW has held Dunsfold up since December 2016 when consent was granted. So they need about 2 years to deal with the infrastructure before they can start building houses. So they are two years behind thanks to the call in and the court action. So DELIVERY of housing is two years behind and under the new NPPF delivery has become a key target.

So now Waverley is vulnerable on this  – e.g. the recent decision on Folly Hill in Farnham, that has blown a hole in Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan. 

We here at the WW (blame Knowless, not Potts)  It does seem particularly bonkers that under-delivery results in more planning consents but that is how we read AND – it isn’t all Waverley’s fault. ,

The Government wants to build 300,000 per annum by the mid-2020s and developers can smell weakness so are piling in.

Thank you  PoW and CPRE and our MP’s Messrs Hunt and Milton for helping us all smell the concrete on our doorsteps instead of the coffee! 


Who do Planning Committees plan for?



Yesterday’s Post highlighted the fate of a Farnham Residents’ Councillor for standing up for the people of Waverley after he was hauled before the council’s Standards Board. 

It’s not what you say it’s the way that you say it, ​Cllr Hyman.

Here’s a Post on the Godalming Community Board from a meeting residents attended at Waverley. Does it strike any chords?

Click on the link below. Recognise anyone? Enough said.

Who do Planning Committees plan for?

It’s not what you say it’s the way that you say it, ​Cllr Hyman.


It’s not what you do but the way that you do it? Are you singing along with us yet?

The predicted snowfall across the South on Friday didn’t prevent Daniel (AKA Cllr Jerry Hyman) stepping into the Lion’s Den – as ‘Your Waverley’ lined up its stormtroopers to bring the outspoken Farnham Residents’ Cllr and champion of our environment, to heel – once and for all.

This post comes with an Elf  &  Safety Warning to anyone wishing to join the council’s ranks:  Unless they are intending to stand for the RULING (or as Non-Conservative voters like to say, rue-the-day Conservatives)  at “Your Waverley’ (YW) – its strapline  – not ours – don’t waste your time and energy,  let alone breath.

‘Your Waverley’s’ Standards Panel came together to judge Cllr Hyman (GH)’s “lack of respect for some officers and a member,” and breaching the Council’s Code of Conduct.   Chaired by the  Tory Whip – Councillor  Michael sleepy – Goodrich also known as Good Riddance. Although in this particular instance viewers of the webcast could be forgiven for calling him, Judge Jeffries! And, who over the seven-hour hearing – created a far worse image of ‘Your Waverley’ in the eyes of the public, than anything Cllr Hyman has ever done!!

The Wonersh councillor likes to joke that he doesn’t have to get elected,  just slide in unopposed every four years, and is infamous for falling asleep on the job. If Wonersh residents had any self-respect they’d dump this ghastly excuse for a councillor and get themselves a real advocate for the village. 

But credit where it’s due, contrary to our expectations. Good-Riddance managed to stay awake in ‘YW’s’ Kangaroo-Court although he failed miserably – to hide his irritation and keep his bully boy ways in check. Look closely if you can bear it, and you’ll see him muttering under his breath as the steam poured out of his ears and nostrils. We all waited with bated breath for his nostril hairs to ignite – and would have happily thrown lighter fuel on the flames!

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 12.15.17

 It was obvious to anyone watching the webcast – don’t do it – it lasted all day and half the evening –  he was in for the kill. All that pent-up anger and rage bottled up at Joint Planning Meetings since the arrival of … THE OPPOSITION spewed out like red hot lava – or do we mean green bile?

Like a mediaeval inquisitor Good-Riddance,  couldn’t wait to poke Cllr Hyman’s eyes out with a hot poker, reminding him that HE  was the Lawyer in this Kangaroo Court,  understood how to barbecue victims, and knew how to brown nose officers. However, GoodR  was somewhat thwarted in his efforts to flay the victim alive  by an independent Consultant and Independent member, who both agreed Cllr Hyman’s passion for abiding by the rules of environmental law may in fact, have led to a breach that was,  “at the finer end of serious.”

GH, a Waverley council tenant and founder of Farnham Residents Group, admitted he was not well equipped to answer the charges against him, had no legal representation and had only received the papers six days earlier.  So instead of answering the charges made against him by Waverley’s  Snowflake officers more familiar for being congratulated with monotonous and brown-nosing regularity by members for their “hard work providing such excellent reports”  made statements instead.

Going head to head in the lion’s den with complainant ‘YW’s’ lawyer (Daniel Bainbridge), Cllr Hyman was supposed to be a lamb going to the slaughter. Only the council hadn’t laid on the mint sauce to add piquancy to their delicacy.

So despite his numerous attempts to skewer and kebab Cllr H by complainant – Joint Planning Committee Chairman Peter Isherwood, who is well used to insulting the villagers of Ewhurst & Cranleigh and  Good -Riddance they both failed. Not only because they lacked the skills of oratory, but quite simply because the facts were not on their side. Not something that normally worries ‘YW’  but in this instance, Cllr Hyman revealed, beyond reasonable doubt, how the Council that prides itself of never making mistakes (in their dreams!)  had made HUGE, BIG, FAT MISTAKES with the advice given to councillors by its legal officers. 

Oh Dear!! Saying that to the man with a face like a smacked arse GR –  who was  forced to apologise at the outset for the Council’s mistake of putting up all the paperwork online for public consumption when it was Confidential and on pink papers – including the Independent Member’s private e-mail details.

Then had to admit – officers had not ensured GH’s  Rebuttal Statement attached to an e-mail sent to the `Head Honcho, Tom Horwood – had mistakenly not been included in “the bundle.”

Conspiracy or what? Trust us Watergate has nothing on Waverleygate!

Judge Jeffries  then showed  video clips of planning meeting webcasts to prove that CH was rude and offensive to officers – by using the abusive term – wait for it  – wait for it …drumroll – “MISQUOTED!”

And for daring to challenge their Legal Advice – that’s the legal advice, they admitted in another Webcast clip provided by Cllr H (which by the way that Good-Riddance fiercely objected to being shown)  – was actually correct!  You couldn’t make it up, seriously. Evidence confirmed by the council’s lawyer that proper assessment required under the Habitats Directive had not been carried out. Including measures that ensure the future for birds and wildlife in the Special Protection Areas around Farnham – Godalming and Haslemere.

The Independent professional Mr Oram admitted he wasn’t equipped to judge whether the legal advice officers gave to the planning committee was right or wrong. But he, after recognising how passionate and knowledgeable Cllr H was on the subject, could understand his frustration believing the matter which occurred in 2017 was ” at the finer end of serious could and should have easily been resolved in private to everyone’s satisfaction much earlier.”

So there you have it, folks – in its desire to castrate and humiliate, a man who is seen as – “The Opposition”  ‘Your Waverley’ has wasted time and taxpayers’ money and human resources dragging a man with a dodgy ticker to a Kangaroo Court only for the Independent Professional  to conclude the whole thing could have been resolved behind closed doors to everyone’s satisfaction.  (Oh! the irony of it, given that, in the normal course of events, that’s ‘YWs’ preferred way of dealing with things)  Ah! but that wouldn’t have been to ‘YW’s’ satisfaction would it …. we feel another song coming on…

 We can’t get no satisfaction…


Although we put this picture up a few days ago – there was no way that Goodriddance was going to gag Farnham’s Hyman.   “The people of Farnham elected me to represent their interests – that is what I am doing and that is what I will continue to do – obey the law. A law which over-rides the Code of Conduct.” He wanted the council not to continue making major errors, particularly on environmental issues, as it had done for the past ten years.

 He said he could not sit idly by and watch Waverley’s towns and villages being wrecked, by inappropriate development which damaged the Special Protection Areas and “non-existent SANGS” and elsewhere in  the borough that flood and have poor transport links. However, he claimed although he had challenged officers – he had NEVER abused them personally.

If Jerry Hyman had been elected as a diplomat, and not knowing when he has said enough – then he might be deemed  GUILTY.  But, as he rightly pointed out, he’s an engineer, with insufficient funds to provide himself with legal advice or secretarial help.  He is also part of a minority party whose members have been bullied – derided –  ridiculed and blocked by some – not all we hasten to add,  members of this discredited administration.

Maybe the verdict to impose training in the Protocol of dealing with Officers – which he must undergo within 42 days – will help him learn from his mistakes? And like many of us who don’t suffer fools gladly – learn how to make his arguments  – without *issing off too many officers… And that will equip him with the skills to do what the Tories do.  

Shut their eyes, put their fingers in their ears,  hold their breath and fart loudly at the electorate! Apparently, it’s called multi-tasking!!!

We will share one hilarious moment with you.

When Good-Riddance had the bare-faced audacity to ask Cllr Hyman how he thought he should be punished? We at the WW thought for one – God-awful moment  –  Cllr Hyman was going to resign from the JPC and other committees – one of which he chairs, and which scrutinises business! But the member for Farnham Castle, who has the third highest attendance record of all 57 members, held on to his dignity and smiled at his tormentor.  

The moral of this tale.

The   Delicate little Snowflakes – otherwise known as Waverley officers – cannot and must not be told they are Wrong, even if they are – in case they feel personally insulted.  Because they NEVER, do you hear NEVER – make mistakes! 

Meanwhile, Cllr Hyman who is a highly principled man reminded us at the Waverley Web of: “A Man for All Seasons” He simply could not let go.  Despite everything. He is a good and honest man of whom the people of Farnham should be proud and we only hope this debacle doesn’t prove to be the death of him. 

‘Is Your Waverley’ gearing up the troops to gag Farnham’s Hyman?




Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 15.05.58

First, there were ten homes agreed, now developers want  56 + homes on the former Wyevale Garden Centre in Alfold to be considered by Waverley ~planners shortly.


More new homes about to be planted on a former garden centre in Alfold.

Transport for New Homes has recently published a report on a project which involved them visiting a wide range of new homes, from large-scale greenfield housing to brownfield sites. As part of the study they looked at public transport, cycling and walking routes, congestion levels on surrounding roads, bus services and day to day facilities, such as provision of schools, shops, recreation and the all-important jobs in order to assess how the building of new homes was mirroring and meeting the aspirations and needs of the people living in them.

Their conclusions were that due to the heavy cost of renovating and, in some cases, decontaminating previously developed brownfield sites and the impact this had on their profits most developers preferred, where ever possible, to acquire and build on greenfield locations.

The biggest problem with this choice, the report concluded – aside from the loss of farmland and attractive, rural green fields – was that it resulted in housing developments being built with little regard to the provision of cycle lanes and footpaths, bus services, shops, schools, GP surgeries and jobs; making new residents entirely dependent on their cars in order to go about their daily lives. Everything from buying a pint of milk and a newspaper, to taking Oliver and Olivia to school, visiting the doctor and that all-important commute to work had to be undertaken by car. Even a simple cycle ride with the children could involve either loading the family’s bikes into the car and driving to a country park or a nerve-wracking ride along busy A-roads to access quieter county lanes and recreation facilities.

HOLD THAT THOUGHT! Because here at the WW – we have been roundly lambasted for our stand that brownfield sites should be developed first. WW has been accused of sleeping with the enemy, trousering money from Trinity College Cambridge, and other, unmentionable activities, too sensitive – even for us blokes to mention.

Apparently, there was uproar at the Alfold’s Neighbourhood Plan Meeting recently when outraged members of the self-interest group which calls itself the Neighbourhood Planning Committee expressed their surprise and anger that they had been pilloried on the Waverley Web. Of course, this was after two members of the public were asked to leave, as the meeting was supposedly not open to the public. Not open to the public! That is exactly what Neighbourhood Plans are all about – Consulting THE PUBLIC. That is why they are called Neighbourhood Plans.



How dare we what? Expose their behind the scenes machinations to concrete all over the green fields of a beautiful rural village in order to prevent the further development of a brownfield site complete with two massive concrete runways and acres of ugly post-war buildings and hangars? A site which, on its website, already boasts it is home to over 100 local companies, providing jobs for over 1,000 people?

Does it’s Neighbourhood Plan promote vital local employment? You know, the jobs that people need to pay the mortgages for their new homes? 

Who do we think we are? We’re local people who are fed up with minority groups, set up by well-to-do middle-class meddlers, funded by mysterious, unnamed backers with deep pockets, who think they can sell up in Wandsworth and Wimbledon and migrate down the A3, inflating house prices so that they are well beyond the reach of the children and grandchildren of the indigenous population, and then start objecting to a development that will bring affordable homes, a new school, a GP surgery, a new parkland with recreational facilities and even more jobs that will enable those who want to live close to where they work to do so. Where, there will be cycle routes and subsidised bus service, in perpetuity. What’s to complain about that, particularly when that development is compared to the development these plotters one planned to inflict on Awfold at Springbok?

We strongly objected to the Weasel, otherwise known as Chris Little Britton, objecting to development on a brownfield site because it will spoil the view from his house, whilst inveigling himself and his wife onto the Awfold Neighbourhood Plan Committee so that they can promote development, at any cost, at Springbok by Thakeham Homes who, the last time we looked, did not – despite Nik Pigeon’s best endeavours – garner support from Alfold Parish Council, nor from Waverley Borough Council or, when they appealed to the Secretary of State!

Other than inflicting 450 homes on poor old Alfold, and, in the process, attempting to treble the size of the village what, precisely, was in it for  Alfold?

 Now, with another 56 homes in the pipeline Wyevale Garden Centre – where do its residents go for essential services? Probably Dunsfold Park and Cranleigh?



To Dump or not to dump – that is the question?



Here’s a suggestion they can’t REFUSE!

They are such meanies at County Towers: on Tuesday they told us all – through the webcast – that they were keeping all of our Community Recycling Centres open. Yes, that’s right, the Recycling Centres had secured a reprieve. Cue a chorus of: Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Now, we all know that a day is a long time in politics but they can’t have changed their minds that quickly – or can they?

Oh yes, they can! And it’s no good going into that old chestnut the pantomime routine: Oh no they can’t!

Because it really is a case of OH YES THEY CAN!!!

No less a personage than Mr Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, has written a letter, alleged to be the Cabinet’s combined response to petitions concerning Community Recycling Centres – we guess that’s what they call ‘Collective Responsibility’. The only problem is, very soon, there’s not going to be any collection going on in Cranleigh!  Read the e-mail below.

According to Mr Oliver, the Council is faced with some very tough decisions about the way it delivers services to ensure it can continue to support its most vulnerable residents. Therefore, he claims, the Council has to look again at the operation of Surrey’s community recycling centres. No shit Sherlock!

Our followers over there in Cranleigh were really hacked off when their recycling centre went from being open seven days a week to only three and arising from that fly-tipping went up exponentially. Do Mr Oliver and his Cabinet care? Not so you’d notice.

Whilst he  acknowledged the concerns raised about fly-tipping, he claimed that from the Cabinet’s experience of recent changes to the service and anecdotal evidence from other local authorities who have already closed sites,


So what’s this then Cllr Oliver? Screen Shot 2019-01-29 at 09.43.26

If Mr Oliver and the Cabinet don’t have any experience of it and don’t expect it, it’s not going to happen!!!

Perhaps Mr Oliver and his Cabinet would like to explain to  Cranleigh residents  why, since their recycling centre went from being operational seven days a week to only three, landowners are finding more and more and more rubbish being dumped in beauty spots, on quiet country lanes and even, in some cases, their gateways and drives? A word to the wise, Mr Oliver, Just because it’s not happening on your commute up the A3 doesn’t mean to say it’s not happening on ours through the Surrey Hills!

Just where does fly-tipping have to occur for it to be on Mr Oliver’s radar? County Hall’s Car park?!

How would Mr Oliver and feel if they weren’t able to enter the Council’s premises because fly-tippers dumped their refuse, overnight, in the entrance or – now here’s a thought – in Mr Oliver’s reserved parking space? He claims they have listened carefully to the views expressed in the recent public consultation and taken them into consideration when developing a final plan.

Seriously? Does Mr Oliver really think the residents of Bagshot and Cranleigh (not to mention Dorking and Warlingham) are stupid? Did any of them vote for the permanent closure of their recycling centres from October 2019? We don’t think so. We entirely agree that it is necessary to set a sustainable budget to enable the Council to deliver a service to the residents of Surrey, we just disagree with its way of going about it.

 But, never fear, we’ve got a plan and, dare we say it, it’s a far better plan than Mr Oliver and his Cabinet’s because we, at the Waverley Web, have never been afraid to go where spiders fear to tread!

1. Reduce the salary of Joanna Killian, Chief Executive of Surrey County Council, from £220,000 per annum by half. For all our sakes, the PM is only earning £150,000 and, with the best will in the world, Ms Killian’s role can’t be anywhere near as stressful or demanding as Mrs May’s!

2. Slash the £1.7 million plus allowances that were paid to Surrey county councillors in 2017/18 – the fourth largest payout compared to 27 other county councils in England! Who the hell do these people think they are? The Fat Cats that got the cream, clearly! In fact, we’d go so far as to suggest they’re drowning in the Gold Top!

3. Instead of expecting the poor, unsuspecting Council Tax Payers of Surrey to plug the gaping hole in Surrey County Council’s gold plated Final Salary Pension scheme, via our Council Tax, we suggest the Council gets real and switches to the Defined Pension Contributions scheme that the rest of us pay into and axes the Final Salary scheme. Join the real world outside of the County Council Gold Plated Fish Bowl, why don’t you?

4. Restructure the top-heavy Surrey County Council, merge with one or two other County Councils and streamline, streamline, streamline.

5. And – stop making stupid investments in shops – like the £50m invested in Blightwell’s in Farnham! 

Mr Oliver claims changes are absolutely necessary to enable him and his Cabinet to set a sustainable budget. We don’t like to repeat ourselves but someone’s got to –  no shit Sherlock!!!

Never mind simply deferring the closure of Cranleigh, Dorking and Warlingham recycling centres – whilst noting, cynically, that the Council recognises this will be an unpopular choice with residents who use those sites – and recommending that the opening hours of recycling centres at Camberley, Caterham and Leatherhead are extended. Who the hell is going to schlep from Cranleigh to Camberley or Caterham – let alone Leatherhead? – with their recycling? If they’re going that far, Cranleigh residents might as well go to Kingston-upon-Thames and vote with their feet (or do we mean wheels?) by dumping their recycling on Mr Oliver and the Cabinet’s doorstep. Maybe, just maybe, when they’re at the sharp end of the problem they’ll do something constructive about it!

Here’s the e-mail sent to all the objectors.

Screen Shot 2019-01-30 at 16.00.24.pngScreenshot 2019-01-30 at 16.42.56


There were ten keen councillors sitting in the hall – nine fell out – just leaving Paul.


GTC__CBAProbably the most important meeting on the Town, Parish and Borough Council’s annual calendar is the meeting/session that occurs at this time every year. To set the Budget.

Perhaps Godalming’s voting fodder – that will soon have leaflets shoved through their doors from political parties and hopefully some Independents – might like to know exactly who is standing up for their interests?

Because at a recent Waverley meeting to discuss important financial matters and the direction in which ‘Your Waverley`’ should travel over the next year. Out of 9 Godalming councillors ONE – yes just ONE Tory Cllr Liz Wheatley – turned up.

As the old saying goes – ‘no names no pack drill’ who the other Godalming Cllr was?  We will not be revealing which other Godalming representative takes your interests, seriously in fact very seriously.

So if you want more of the same in May – here’s your man.

Screen Shot 2019-01-30 at 22.05.38.png

Or maybe like lemmings, we will all cling to old habits that die hard and vote this way for four more years of the same old same old?





Who says shouting out loud doesn’t pay dividends? The Eastern villages win their battle to stop Surrey dumping the dump.


Surrey County Council Leader Tim Oliver took the wind out of everyone’s sails when only minutes into the Cabinet meeting he announced that all the county’s Community Recycling Centres would remain open.

Give the man his due – he didn’t stop anyone getting their four minutes of fame allowing them to present their Petitions and tell his Cabinet why their Civic RC’s should remain open.

Over here in Farnham – The Herald’s Don’t Dump the Dump Campaign- had already paid dividends. It was knocked off Surrey’s hit-list a week ago. But that didn’t stop The Herald’s spokesman Daniel Gee from giving them a drubbing for even suggesting the move. He revealed the strength of opposition online and through a petition. He said now residents want their facilities improved.

Hannah Nicholson heading up the Cranleigh campaign argued that with a huge increase in development across the Eastern part of Waverley to remove the CRC would cause problems on narrow country roads on their way to Witley CRC there would be more fly-tipping and bonfires in gardens. Thousands of residents from Ewhurst and Cranleigh had signed her petition.

The route to Witley is shown here: Couldn’t possibly have been the suggestion that everyone give a toot on their horn outside Foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt’s country abode on their way to the Witley dump – could it – no of course not.witleytip2

The ‘Don’t dump the dump’ campaign works for Farnham – but not for Cranleigh and the eastern villages?

Representatives from Warlingham – Dorking – Lyne in Chertsey – and more all lined up to have their say – but the county council had already put their hands up Guv – and delivered the result they all wanted. Some sat like rather deflated balloons having prepared themselves for a fight.

Sadly – it ain’t over until the fat county councillor lady sings  – and residents begin to increase proper recycling into the county’s CRC’s.

No black bags full of toot – proper recycling – the sort you know – that can be recycled. And – the council intends to educate us all. We can see it now a GCSE in Recycling?

Now riding to the rescue comes Dr Andrew Povey Cranleigh & Ewhurst’s County Councillor – He is to head up a new Waste Strategy Taskforce – because the Public Consultation revealed that you cannot dump the neighbourhood dumps – without creating a huge stink. 

mylittlepovey2But let’s give credit where credit is due – a couple of new brooms have swept into Surrey County Council and they have begun – The Listening Project – and long may it continue.







‘Is Your Waverley’ gearing up the troops to​ gag Farnham’s Hyman?



Here’s a health warning to anyone out there who may be considering standing for public office – at ‘Your Waverley.’

As we are only a couple of months away from the May elections, this is an opportune moment for us to issue a timely warning.


 Where possible keep your mouth shut and your hand up – and don’t question or expect answers from the plumply salaried Stazi rulers of Waverley Towers. 

Because committing that mortal sin of being true to yourself and the people who elected you will see you end up in the same heavy duty dog doo that Farnham Residents’ Councillor Jerry Hyman, has pitched himself into –  up to his neck.

You know the councillor who opposed inappropriate overdevelopment on Cranleigh’s floodplains; also, off numerous narrow country roads in the borough; near Farnham/Elstead/Haslemere Special Protection Area (SPA) without proper assessment of the likely consequences.   He also opposed development on former green belt land in Godalming at Aarons Hill.

HE argued that Non-Material Amendments (NMA’s) on Farnham’s Blightwells were not “non-material.”  This forced planners into referring them to councillors to decide …  the 24/7 closure of the Farnham by-pass which would have wrecked Farnham’s traders’  Christmas. Do you recognise him now? 

 On Friday he appears before Waverleys Standards Committee which has already decided he is GUILTY as charged. Goliath gave David a chance to engage with the process and apologise, but he wouldn’t play the game, stubborn or what? Though he did once and it resulted in a heart attack, followed immediately by heart surgery.

Oh, and in case you are interested in all the CONFIDENTIAL information – minus Mr Hyman’s statement of defence, was there for all to see on Waverley’s website. DON’T LOOK IT’S GONE. Perhaps this was put in the public domain to embarrass Councillor Hyman further?

The WW wrote to Cllr Hyman seeking comment on the above, to which he has not responded, perhaps he’s not allowed? However, we received this message from the Monitoring Officer – which you will note, contains no apology for the serious error. Must be confidential or it wouldn’t have been removed, would it?

We will, of course, agree to the council’s request and remove the offending e-mail. 

Dear sir/madam

Your email to Cllr Jerry Hyman of 26 January 23:04 has been shared with me. You are correct that the detailed papers should not have yet been available online. These papers are not classified as exempt from the public under legislation however under our internal arrangements for standards hearings they were not due to be published prior to Friday.

As you state in your email, the papers included the email address for Waverley’s Independent Person and this should have been redacted from all papers. The Council has today contacted both Ms Cameron and the Information Commissioner’s Office to alert them to this.

When the Standards Panel resolves to publish the detailed papers at item 3 of their business on Friday, the full set of papers (with the Independent Person’s email address redacted) will be posted online and made available in hard copy to anyone in attendance. I would request that you do not share any of the papers you obtained prior to that point and in particular do not publish the page including that disclosing the Independent Person’s email address at any point. I would be grateful if you could delete any documentation containing that email address and refer instead to the version of papers which will be published on Friday.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Robin Taylor
Head of Policy and Governance (Monitoring Officer)
Waverley Borough Council

Whose head will roll for that little error?  Nobody, because there is only accountability for some at ‘Your Waverley.’ And, never if you are a Tory and almost never if you are an officer. We all make mistakes. Here at the WW, we apologise – Mea Culpa, Maxima Mea Culpa. The difference between us and  Waverley Borough Council it – NEVER MAKES MISTAKES. 

In fact, having read through a bible of information from an  ‘Independent’ – panel member, and an outside Consultant brought in by ‘Your Waverley’ who has trousered our council tax cash but admits he has “no legal knowledge”  Farnham’s  champion for the protection of our natural environment  – doesn’t stand as much chance of success as Nelson does of getting his eye back. Possibly Nelson’s chances are greater? 

Because in a nutshell – Your Waverley” still accepts Natural England’s opinion on International Environmental Law – despite the Sweetman case having proved them wrong. – But of course – ‘Your Waverley’ will continue to ignore it – along with others. The Sweetman Judgement read it here- paragraph 35-38.;jsessionid=3F9139A41D9912E1A7DFC1C79DC6A206?text=&docid=200970&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9256487

But the best way of shutting up a councillor is to drag him/her before the Monitoring Officer for a good slap, be put on the naughty step and told to Beeehaaave  – and apologise. However, if you are committed to obeying Environmental Law – you know the laws that protect our natural habitat the Wealden heaths, the birds, bees, flora and fauna that are disappearing fast… you could be thrown off Waverley’s influential Joint Planning Committee. Why not just wipe out endangered species, that is happening all over our borough.

Fear, not prospective councillors – you can fall asleep Sweet Dreams are made of this? – and Sleepy will probably chair the Standards Committee – you can even insult the eastern villages off piste like this As two of Your Waverley councillors sneer and deride the villages of Ewhurst and Cranleigh, officers are daft enough to remove the incriminating remarks from U-Tube.

But don’t ever dare,  criticise, or tell the officers that they might be wrong.   What’s more, don’t you dare to stand up for what YOU believe is right – particularly if you have the misfortune to be part of the POLITICAL OPPOSITION – because they will gag you. So-play nicely – or else!

As Lord Lambing said in the Victoria Climbie Inquiry: “Councillors must not accept at face value what they are told.”

Unless of course they happen to be part of the rotten borough of Waverley.

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 11.52.38.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 11.53.35.png

Here’s a paragraph from the Consultant’s report.

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 11.59.23.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 11.59.51.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 12.00.19.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 11.32.46.pngScreen Shot 2019-01-28 at 11.26.37H

Annexe 8 Alex Oram – Final report Councillor Hyman issued to all parties 8.6.18_Redacted2



Another little effort to turn Godalming’s Green Belt into 50 shades of grey.



Please, Sir can we have some more… (houses)?

Save Broom and Lees
… because Godalming residents believe the Green Belt matters.

Broom and Lees is a large sports field on the northeastern side of Hurtmore Road in Godalming, Surrey owned by Charterhouse School.

‘Your Waverley’  has repeatedly sought to protect the Green Belt status of this historic field, which falls within an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV),
but Charterhouse is demanding that protection is set aside to make way for a housing estate to fill its coffers.

Screen Shot 2019-01-17 at 21.29.58.png

Obviously, David Armitage the schools’ Director of Finance and Strategy is doing a little schmoozing with the locals, and taking his time before lobbing in yet another controversial application at ‘Your Waverley?’ After all, there are only so many proposals for development in the Green Belt that even this sleazy organisation can accept.

But perhaps it will get a little help from its old alumni – or is he too busy climbing up the greasy pole? After all its common knowledge he prefers green fields to brownfield sites!

Calling in the Dunsfold Aerodrome (brownfield site) plan with his colleague MP Anne Milton has delayed development there for years.

Had Dunsfold got consent in 2008/9 it would certainly have prevented most of the development around Cranleigh and almost certainly on the former Green Belt land in Godalming? Thank you Councillor Knowless – and Bramley’s Shut the Gates.
But more recently,  PoW’s challenge has held Dunsfold yet again. Since December 2016 when consent was granted. So it needs  2 years to deal with the infrastructure before even starting to build houses.

So it is two years behind thanks to the call in and the court action. DELIVERY of housing there is now two years behind, leaving the rest of Waverley vulnerable.



21 December 2018
Today a number of residents received a letter, dated 18 December and distributed by SP Broadway, from David Armitage Director of Finance and Strategy at Charterhouse. The heading is ‘Broom and Lees Fields Consultation’.It was written to all those who provided written comment at or following the School’s public exhibition held on 5th July 2018.

In summary, the letter explains that since that time the School has been reviewing the comments received and discussing its proposals with various organisations and has also met with some residents.

The School now “better understands the concerns of the local community” and is “keen to examine these further”. Rather than “rush into a planning application” the School has “decided to review its proposals and re-consider the matter in the early part of 2019”.

Recipients are promised that should there be any further developments David Armitage will be in contact again.

This website   Save Broom and Lees Campaign was established to help provide information to local residents, and many other interested parties,
whose aim is to Save Broom and Lees.

More new homes about to be planted on a former garden centre in Alfold.


Its raining concrete – halleluiah? 

Developers – Alfold Estates is digging in for 56 new homes – 19 of which it claims will be “affordable” – only months after receiving permission for 10 homes – two of which were “affordable.”

Yup, you did read that right, in the infamous words of Grace Brothers: ‘Going up!’ From 10 to 56 – that’s a whopping 460% increase!!!

We don’t like to say we told you so but … oh, go on then, why hold back?

We bloody well told you so!

The size of the site of the former Wyevale Garden Centre is the same as the previously approved scheme but the developer has just got greedier. Though at least this is a Brownfield site due to it being – a garden centre – and there won’t be many of those judging by the development we have witnessed.

Isn’t increasing numbers once permission has been granted getting to be a bit of a habit in this borough of ours?

 A month ago Waverley agreed to allow A2 Dominion to remove all the affordable homes in Phase 1 of its consent for 265  in nearby Alfold Road, Cranleigh.  It intends to put them in one great lump across the road at West Cranleigh Nurseries. Now the developer wants to increase the 67 to 75 of phase 1. saying – “Please Sir – can we have more? 

Screen Shot 2019-01-22 at 13.27.43

Here’s what Alfold’s councillor Kevin Deanus said last time: No doubt he will have another fight on his hands – 

Has the Alfold Bobby’s tirade stopped the creation of Alfold New Town?

Because here’s what the developer claims: There is unprecedented housing need and the Government wants 300,000 homes built every year to meet the need.

  •  There is concern Waverley itself is not producing enough homes to meet the identified need.
  • Only 519 completions in the borough 2017-2018. Falling short of the 590 p.a. in the Local Plan Part 1. Reminding  Waverley has also continuously delayed the production of its Local Plan `Part 2 and Neighbourhood Plans which demonstrates that the council DOES NOT  have a five-year land supply. Completely ignores the 1,800 homes permitted a few hundred yards away!

The locals cannot believe how Cr*p the Alfold scheme is. They claim there is nothing innovative about the builds asking:  – “How many houses in Alfold have balconies and Teeny Tiny front Patios?? The developer’s  Design & Access statement regurgitates all the usual drivel of the wealth of facilities in the Village within walking distance.

An M & S and a cafe = a self-service in a garage with a drink dispenser!   Residents have no idea where the Café is…. Any ideas appreciated.

One told the WW…

“I am so glad that you can walk down Loxwood road to the Vets – Apart from General Appointments how many people walk their sick dogs to the Vets for 1/2hr???” This developer like all the others is Piggy-Backing off the back of the Dunsfold Park Development saying it is they (Dunsfold Park) who is going to provide all the new Infrastructure for the Village – so why should they have to??

If the residents of Awfold, Bramley, Kerchingfold, Cranleigh, Duncefold, Where-Has-all-the-traffic-Comb-from et al had only listened to the better informed they might well have avoided all the over-development of the countryside that is now raining down upon them.


What are they offering the Village of Alfold? NOTHING except more Houses and Traffic – There has been no Real consultation with the Village just a few meetings with Neighbours, Parish Council and WBC – What about the Village?– This is development by stealth because they don’t think anyone in the Village will notice it. Grumpy Denise of  Alfold.

Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 15.05.58.png




The ‘Don’t dump the dump’ campaign works​ for​ Farnham – but not for Cranleigh and​ the eastern villages?


Here in Farnham, there is jubilation that the  County Council has decided not to close our town dump. – But there might not be such good news next Tuesday for the village dubbed by Waverley councillors as  – “poor old Cranleigh.” 

Here’s what one Cranleigh man said: Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 13.55.51.png



Perhaps all those in the East will give the Foreign Secretary and MP for Farnham a toot on their horns as they pass on their way to Witley? Or, will they go through Godalming and add to the traffic there?


Here’s our Farnham Herald today.

The huge outcry from Farnham people was heard by the county’s decision-makers, but sadly when the county meets on Tuesday (29 January) it recommends dumping Cranleigh. 

Despite being Waverley’s latest growth town in the East of the borough – 1,800 homes proposed on Dunsfold Aerodrome –  1,700 + in Cranleigh + hundreds more in nearby villages – residents could be forced to travel to Witley to dispose of their rubbish.  

More than 12,000 people responded to the recycling centre consultation. The only two centres Surrey’s “kitchen cabinet”  proposes saving are Lyne in Chertsey and ours in Farnham. Residents in the East are already travelling across the county boundary into West Sussex, but measures are being taken by the counties’ recycling authority to stop border-bouncing.

Let’s all dump on poor old Witley?

Among the cuts proposed in its “transformation programme” to save £200m, the county council will close 37 children’s centres on Tuesday – including those in Waverley – and is withdrawing concessionary bus passes for disabled people and their companions before and after 11pm on weekdays. Next on the hit list could be local libraries. 

Or perhaps – Cranleigh’s county councillor Dr Andrew Povey, who said three years ago he would oppose further housing development over there –  can pull something out of the bag – and stop the closure?




When will Waverley drop the shops at Blightwells?


Did you miss the revised Waverley timeline for Blightwells Yard in Farnham?


Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 10.08.10.png

Will the Waverley Wallies and the County Bozos shape-up and follow Guildford Borough Council’s example and drop the shops?

The neighbouring borough has obviously read the retail runes. It intends to -abandon its ambitious retail development in North Street and provide more housing.  Council leader Paul Spooner said:

 “Like any sensible council, we have looked again at the retail market and  agree to now progress  with a primarily  residential-based scheme.”

Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 10.20.24.png

Maybe, we’ve missed the latest retail unit that has rocked up to Waverley/Surrey Councils offering to take one of their posh new shops in the aptly named -Blightwells Yard?  Because let’s face it we all know how popular it is!

  Only 5,833

… voted against the East Street development which Waverley and its New Best Friend (NBF) Surrey County Council have foisted upon us all. Perhaps as a kind of punishment for seeking Independence a few years ago?  Now a two-way punishment on the now chaotic one-way A31 dual carriageway using our dwindling taxpayer’s money!

Breaking new from Santander. They’re closing their banks in Godalming, Haslemere & Guildford later this year. More empty shops in our  High Streets?

Now that Farnham town is gridlocked most of the time with traffic, we are all wondering how many more of our existing shops will put up the closed signs? After watching the site deteriorate for 14 years, and watching it resemble a war zone for the past 18 months, Farnham people are asking “haven’t you punished us enough.”

What clever planners we have? Who in their right mind decides that Berkeley’s scheme to demolish Woolmead can go ahead at the same time as the redevelopment of East Street. A development containing not one “affordable home.” Some supporters believe that getting rid of the eyesore is a bonus, others hoped that just a few of Farnham’s period features could have been included in the new development plans. But hey, ho, so much better to have a block of residential flats that look more like Inland Revenue offices. Because whatever they do to it, it can never look worse than what was there before.





Common sense goes out of ‘Your Waverley’s’ window.


Watching ‘Your Waverley’ spending ‘Our Money’ has never been WW’s favourite way to find pleasure, so we’re more than delighted to be able, to sum up, the Waverley budget charade with a well-fitting cartoon found lurking on a Farnham facebook group post.

Council Tax Increase cartoon.jpg

And together with our new best friends, we are investing over £50m in Farnham’s Blightwells shops?

As you’d expect, ‘Your Waverley’ is proposing another above-inflation increase in Council Tax. There will be hefty hikes in most  Fees and Charges, (even dying gets more expensive.) In life and death, let’s squeeze a little bit more out of the voting fodder rather than tackle the unpleasant job of cleaning up and streamlining the crumbling Burys operation. The three-week ‘public’ process of budget setting began last night with the O  & S committee, 

The Conservative administration’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee proposed a 2.99% rise in the Waverley precept – the maximum currently allowed by the government – will then be shoved through at the Executive Meeting scheduled for 6pm on 5th February, before it’s adoption by the Full Council Meeting at 7pm on 12th February.
Sadly the unusually sparse committee papers provide precious little detail of where the big numbers come from, so we can but hope that someone is keeping a beady eye behind the scenes for us here at the Waverley Web. We love hearing from officers who are as disenchanted as we are?  

The Waverley Precept forms roughly 10% of the overall Council Tax Bill that we pay, with some going to Surrey Police, and the lion’s share going to Surrey County Council. Last year Surrey hiked up their precept with an extra Adult Social Care increase.

Screen Shot 2019-01-22 at 13.27.43.png

This year we’ve also had Surrey Police Commissioner David Munro begging. “Please, sir can we have more?’ Which judging from the crime-wave sweeping the county, he certainly needs something.

In Cranleigh, – there were 19 incidents – yes 19 in one night last week, the village where developers are knocking £20,000 off new homes and offering more incentives than PPI. Soon no doubt buyers will buy one get one free?

So we can forget about improved efficiency, we must simply get used to the idea of paying more and more for dwindling services. Read a post we made earlier.  Let’s all dump on poor old Witley?

Who, we wonder, is serving who?

Surrey County Council decided yesterday  – despite massive objection – to close 31 children’s centres right across the county – including those in the borough of Waverley. These include centres in Haslemere; Cranleigh; and Farnham. 

Let’s all dump on poor old Witley?



Darling, can you programme the SatNav to the tip?


The powers that be at  County Towers have more or less decided that recycling centres here in Farnham and Cranleigh will close. Ye, ye, we all know there’s a public consultation exercise going on so that they can say they have ticked all the boxes by asking US what THEY want!

And here’s WHY?  Surrey’s head honcho – Tim Oliver told the Waverley Partnership Committee the county council’s finances were in heavy duty dog doo – or words to that effect. It needed to save zillions and flog off County Towers to make ends meet!  The man the WW tipped to become Surrey County Council’s new Leader was first past the post.

They claim – and this is straight from the binman’s mouth – that 55,000 fewer tonnes of waste was collected at the Witley centre last year – because all us goody-goodies are being much more sensible about the stuff we throw away. The Cranleigh tip is the least used and Farnham’s Recycling Centre is to be dumped – literally, because, according to refuse experts it is no longer fit for purpose, is not big enough and the staff there are – “not very engaging. He also Confirmed ” there won’t be a new one provided elsewhere in the present financial climate!’

Wouldn’t more houses increase Farnham’s needs – asked Councillor Carole Cockburn? And the thousands of new homes under construction in Cranleigh, asked Councillors’ Townsend & Povey? What about increased incidents of flying tipping, asked Bramley’s, Councillor Seaborne?

“Fly-tipping in the county of Surrey has decreased said the expert.”

Cranleigh is closing because “it doesn’t generate enough recycling rubbish.”

But it was Surrey County and Waverley Councillor (Godalming Holloway) Peter Martin that turned the wheelie bin on its head when he exclaimed –Screen Shot 2019-01-21 at 14.17.31.png

“But even more recycling trips to Witley by residents of Farnham and Cranleigh is certainly going to cause very harmful congestion in my area.”

Because Farnham people will have to travel via Godalming or Elstead.   Cranleigh people will either have to travel on a one-way, no passing places across Hascombe Hills at Loxhill named “The Rat Run” by Protect Our Waverley – where everyone can give a toot to Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt or do a crap run through – yes – you guessed – Godawfulming.

So there you have it, folks- we are not generating enough recycling – which is why the people of Farnham and Cranleigh may have to go to Witley. 

In other words: It’s our own bloody fault for doing what we are told by ‘Your Waverley and Your Surrey Councils. 

Screen Shot 2019-01-19 at 10.50.06.png Surrey County Council decided this morning after holding its public consultation to close 31 children’s centres across the county including those in Waverley. These include the thriving centres in Haslemere, Farnham and in Cranleigh.


Where art thou now POW?


They seek him here, they seek him there,
Waverley parishioners seek him everywhere!
Is he in heaven? Is he in hell?
Where is that damn elusive Capt’n Bob Lies
Hiding out amongst the chives?
His mischief creates nothing but invoices
Though he tries to claim he’s giving people choices!

There’s a huge hue and cry in Cranleigh where its parish council  – not to mention its residents – would like to know where Capt’n Bob Lies and his cohort Little Briton (‘Who? Me? I’m absolutely nothing to do with Protect Our Waverley!’) are?

Nothing has been heard from Capt’n Bob and his cronies since the end of November when the High Court threw out their challenge to the Dunsfold development and he hit the airwaves trying to justify this decision by accusing the Judge – a planning expert no less – of not understand planning law! As you do!

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Borough – just a hop, skip and six miles away from Dunsfold in Cranleigh – the Parish Council and local residents would really, really, REALLY welcome Protect our Waverley’s help in doing what it says on their can –

Protecting our Waverley!

So where were you when Waverley Planners were faced with applications to build former green belt land in GODALMING POW? Godawfulming – here we come?


Cranleigh is facing~: 

  • Development in the village centre: Huge 80-bed private care home + 26 residential units of accommodation for anyone from anywhere, anytime.
  • Another shedload of housing proposed by Cranleigh School for Cranleigh School in Horseshoe Lane. (27)
  • A lorry-load of housing (40) proposed by the same school which will join Cranleigh with the settlement of Rowley on a vital wedge of land opposite the Notcutts Garden Centre in Guildford Road.
  • A bigger lorry load of housing (91) – on the former sites of two local schools, after the two new schools have been consented – by Surrey County Council.  With traffic generation in Parsonage Road likely to bring  Cranleigh New Town to a standstill?

and that’s just your starter for TEN.

So where is Protect our Waverley and Capt’n Bob when they’re needed? Fighting Godalming’s corner – No Way!

Apparently, one of our correspondents has the answer:

It would appear Capt’n Bob has developed an addiction to litigation; he just can’t get enough of it!

Regular readers will recall that we mentioned last year that we’d received a rant from a reader advising us that Capt’n Bob and wife Mia were refusing to pay an award-winning local landscaping company for work they’d been commissioned to carry out at Casa Bob’n’Mia. Yes, that’s the one, you all remember the infamous Mi Casa Su Casa!

According to the award-winning craftsman, Capt’n Bob & Mia tried to wriggle out of paying circa £26,000 – yep, you did read that right! £26,000! – with claims of poor workmanship.

The case went to arbitration and, thankfully, for the award-winning landscaping contractor, the Arbitrator ‘saw straight through [Capt’n Bob] and threw out [his] claims of poor workmanship as he couldn’t supply any detail or evidence.’ No change there then!

According to our informant, Capt’n ‘Bob consistently lied and tried desperately to weasel his way out of paying us for over a year and caused myself and family a huge amount of upset at that time.’ Going on to describe Capt’n Bob as a ‘disgusting, lying, underhanded bully’.

Now hold on – even we don’t use that many expletives. Bob did pay the full amount, but he, of course, made the contractor wait the full two weeks. 

The contractor claims he still didn’t get quite everything he was due, but certainly over £20, 000 more than Bob Lies was trying to get away with paying. Luckily he was able to produce a letter from another company stating he did the same to them. The shame is that even after the interest he was instructed to pay, he still came out slightly on top. He had not a single care about how holding back this amount of money would affect a small local business or his family and there was nothing in the award to discourage him from trying this again.

He said “Bob and Mia are bullies and I’m sure someone else will find that out very soon. “

In the meantime, other tradesmen and women who are called to work at Casa Bob’n’Mia might like to take note of this sorry tale and ensure they get payment up front because, apparently, the couple like to ‘cherrypick’ what they choose to pay for and the award-winning landscaping contractor would like to ensure that others don’t find themselves in the same boat they did. Which leads us neatly back to Baroness Orczy:

Let’s hope that Captain Lies doesn’t come up against too much opposition to his own planning application?

Screen Shot 2019-01-18 at 16.53.55.png

‘Your Waverley’ is being bombarded by developers eager to start moving more earth and more money in and around Cranleigh.



So it could soon be Goodbye Rowley – hello Cranleigh New Town.

The settlement of Rowly has been in the mind’s eye of numerous developers including local councillors Jeanette and Stewart Stennett. Who – we have heard are intending to earn more Brownie points – no offence to the amazing Brownie movement – for their friends!Screen Shot 2019-01-19 at 10.46.02.png


Screen Shot 2019-01-19 at 10.50.06.png


They managed to trouser a planning consent in the green belt near their Rowley home/business, in the Guildford Road with the help of their Tory Tosser colleagues. This occurred despite planning officers urging their fellow councillors not to do so as it could open the floodgates for development on similar sites elsewhere! 

Screen Shot 2019-01-09 at 10.15.31.png

Now Cranleigh Public School wants to build 40 properties on the vital wedge of open space opposite the Notcutts Garden Centre in Guildford Road and another 27 on the school complex off Horseshoe Lane. All with the help of A2Dominion – which already has 265 homes tucked under its belt helped by Bespoke Property Services aka “Mr Cranleahy”  Andrew Leahy.  The duo of ” Lettuce and Leahy “also want to build 26 apartments and a new 80-bed nursing home in Cranleigh Town centre. This after duping successive parish councils into believing they intended to build a replacement hospital – with beds – a day hospital and a minor injuries unit. Rumours are rife in Cranleigh that the developers used the charity as a ploy to pursue their wider development interests.

However, here at the WW – we couldn’t possibly comment,

Andrew Leahy has told The Alternative Cranleigh Community Board that he is not a director of A2 Dominion as he resigned in 2014. But the housing association was one of his clients. Tell it as it is – or someone will tell it for you Mr Leahy. We have heard from a member of the L of F that you resigned from the board so that your development aspirations wouldn’t be seen as a conflict of interest in the Charity of which you were a trustee.  Recognise the word –


Cranleigh Parish Council is presently reeling under the weight of planning applications, despite the fact that it has already reached the quota of homes included in the Local Plan Part 1. This excludes 1,800 homes and business space consented at nearby Dunsfold Park.

There are also numerous planning applications lodged in Ellens Green, Alfold and the villages around, which impact on Cranleigh’s meagre infrastructure.

Screen Shot 2019-01-09 at 10.15.31

A Waverley officer has told the Waverley Web that other schemes have been proposed along the Guildford Road between Rowley and Cranleigh, and developers are busy clearing land including the site of the old Silverwood Nursery site adjacent to the home of the borough and parish councillor Mary Forszewski, who also owns land there. Other sites are also in the frame.

“It’s like a frenzy has broken out over there – and there appears nothing we can do to stop it” because if we refuse these applications, then they go to appeal and Government Inspector’s over-rule decisions made by local democratically elected people.”

Screen Shot 2019-01-09 at 10.15.31

The parish council has recently objected to a so-called – ‘CONSULTATION’ by Surrey County Council. The county can do whatever it likes!  It can grant its own consent -regardless of how opposed the locals are. Alfold is a prime example – where SCC built a school for autistic children despite huge local opposition. 

How right is that?  They can shout it from the rooftops that putting two new schools on land adjacent to Glebelands School in Parsonage Road + almost 100 homes on the sites they vacate in the same road – will cause traffic chaos. And, just to add to Cranleigh’s traffic misery – the council is proposing that in future parents’  “park and stride” their children to the new schools by dropping them in the High Street. They can then be turned out onto the common and make their way up a lane known locally as”dog sh*t alley” adjacent to the White House! You couldn’t make it up!

mylittlepovey2Will Surrey County Councillor Andrew Povey ride to Cranleigh’s rescue?

Don’t you bet on it?



Can ‘Your Waverley’ grab gardens anywhere other than here in Farnham?


Developers can grab as many gardens as they like in Cranleigh, Bramley – in Godalming, even in Haslemere – but in Farnham, councillors are telling developers – to keep their earthmovers off Farnham’s lawns. 

Despite ‘expert’ advice from council officers to grant a host of applications Farnham councillors lined up at the Western area planning committee to refuse all but one. Including an application by Waverley Borough Council for two flats on an unofficial car park in Ryle Road!  One Farnham wag even asked officers if the council could appeal the decision made by itself for itself?

Will Waverley’s voting fodder hold this Tory administration to account in 2019?

They argued that the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, The Farnham Design statement and the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework all oppose “garden grabbing.” Because squeezing a property or two, or three or a dozen or so, spoils the character of towns and should be resisted.

Well, surprise, surprise, garden grabbing is alive and well in and around Cranleigh New Town and all the nearby villages. Even the garden centres are throwing in the trowel and joining the cash and grab brigade. 

So WW asks – why is it ok to grab every garden in the East, North and South of Waverley but not in the West?

It couldn’t possibly be due to the wight of objections from Farnham residents and neighbours of these proposed development sites  – with an election in the offing – could it?

Because garden grabbing – mainly called windfall sites –  has its own section in the Local Plan Part 1 and Part 2 which is the adopted policy of ‘Your Waverley.’ So will those disgruntled developers be reminding Inspectors when these sites all go to appeal – that is happens everywhere in the borough except here in Farnham?


Screen Shot 2019-01-02 at 20.08.43.png

Here’s just one of the many Farnham applications refused. 


But it was quite a different story this week when the Eastern Planning Committee determined a Bramley application.  A site in the Green Belt, which councillors refused, went to appeal, was granted by an Inspector and has now come back for a much larger property in the garden of Mill Farm Cottage, Mill Lane. A scheme that removed hedges changes the character of the lane, creates another entrance – despite the Appeal Inspector refusing one – and is 25% larger than he allowed. So what sort of a signal does that send out to developers?

Oh!  And By-Pass Byham voted for it!

Screen Shot 2019-01-08 at 18.29.44.pngScreen Shot 2019-01-08 at 18.30.57.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-08 at 18.32.32.png


Surprising what a little shove from the opposition and a big shove from residents can achieve in Godalming.


Because last night a handful of Godalming Tory councillors shunned officers advice and stuck to their manifesto promise to refuse ANY development on former green belt land.  Does the hypocrisy of Godalming Tories have no bounds? Last week they gave permission for 262 homes on Green Belt at Aarons Hill.Godawfulming – here we come?

Perhaps it was re-reading the manifesto letter they sent to residents in 2015 – that did it?

Godalming Town Council includes many Waverley councillors – but has no planning committee. Due to the importance of development on land taken out of the Green Belt by a Government Inspector. The Town Council considered and objected to both.

  • Ashill’s development of 262 homes atAarons’ Hill, Godalming. 
  • Ockford Homes application for 21 homes in Binscombe Lane.

So residents sat expecting to hear the Tory-dominated Central Planning Committee pass the  Binscombe Lane scheme – just as they did with Aarons’ Hill in Eashing Lane?

Screen Shot 2019-01-17 at 10.18.25.png

However, one resident reminded them of the little missive featured below in the hope it would bring a volte-face – and it did?

Even Chairman – “I follow officers advice-or Else” voted against – and used his casting vote to send the scheme into Waverley’s trash bin.

Resident, Stephen Clarke – said  they would be  in breach of the Godalming Conservatives 2015 manifesto pledges on the green belt and warned them to take note of the huge amount of local objection to build in a Medieval Hamlet within 30 metres of the Conservation Area, on Green Belt and  land of Great Landscape Value, prompting an 84% increase in its population.

“It would be scandalous if you broke your promise now,” he said,

How could this committee ignore the objections of the Town Council and promises by Waverley’s Leader Julie Potts that  Binscombe was a “Heritage Asset?”

As planning officers argued – “We are satisfied” that benefit would outweigh harm, “we are satisfied” there will be no road danger – “we are satisfied” … that the earth is round, the sky is blue…

Councillor Paul Follows – the only scrap of opposition on the block argued he was anything but-  satisfied! Was vehemently opposed to any building on Green Belt, hadn’t agreed to the Local Plan Part 1, which had taken far too long to prepare, along with the council’s failure to introduce the Community Infrastructure Levy due in March.

The development was “premature” the access would be dangerous – saying – “I am looking at my five fellow Town councillors to oppose this.” But not all of them did! Liz Wheatley (Con) described the scheme as “almost a tragedy” David Hunter (Con) who a week earlier voted FOR Aaron’s Hill said it was “premature” and asked – “The LP is for 30 years, why do we have to build everything in one year.” But Councillor Peter Martin (Tom, Tom the Piper’s son sent his apologies) said there were NO planning reasons to refuse – and despite objections from the CPRE; Town Council; residents and Waverley’s very own Conservation Officer; he went on to attack Councillor Follows, saying he would – “vote with my head – not my heart.”

The WW has worked out on the back of a fag packet that the promised 106 Monies offered by the developer towards infrastructure is around £100,000 – and CIL would be close to £1m! However, at least we made an attempt to calculate – more than all the officers/solicitors could manage!

Whilst Councillor Anna James wiped the crocodile tears (again!!) from her eyes, saying her little village had been completely removed from the Green Belt and forced to take 100 homes, she would  not object to this amazing well-designed little development, and she was –  “really sorry.” What? Really, really, really sorry!

 The real shock came when Chairman David Else said his village of Elstead had been taken out of the Green Belt too, and many of Godalming’s green fields he had enjoyed as a kid were disappearing. This field was one is the last buffer’s he would not wish to see covered in housing – so he and the Vice-Chairman By-Pass Byham voted against.

 With a vote of 5 FOR and 5 AGAINST he used his casting vote to consign proposed development in Binscombe to the bin!


Has Cranleigh Parish Council thrown a spanner in the works of a charity’s efforts to build a private nursing home on land once owned by villagers?​



Seemingly Cranleigh Parish Council went behind closed doors to consider what action it would take regarding a charity’s bid to build an 80-bed nursing home + 20 community beds + 26 residential flats on land it once owned.

How refreshing it is to see that despite going into CONFIDENTIAL session to discuss the matter – it was (a) on the Agenda signalling its intention to do so, but more important (b) to actually publish its decision.

Take a leaf of transparency out of one of your parish council’s books Waverley Borough Council.

 What goes on behind YOUR  closed doors stays behind them!!

It appears the council, once partnered the charitable organisation Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust (CVHT) when it had the noble aim of replacing the old cottage hospital. We understand this was derailed when the GP’s pulled out of a scheme started almost 20 years ago. However, it has now moved so far away from the original concept that it appears, the council has begun to regret giving away public land for £1 despite receiving a replacement playing field in nearby Knowle Lane. The planning application to be considered by Waverley Planners shortly – has moved so far away from the original concept – it isn’t any longer what it says on the tin. We understand some donors, (over £1.5m was collected) are calling for their money back, but have been refused!

 It is believed the parish’s planning committee narrowly supported the application before Christmas – however, according to the council minutes it has now OBJECTED to the residential part of the scheme due to a covenant that exists. WW understands neither the council or villagers who fundraised to replace the old hospital, ever envisaged residential accommodation on the land. Particularly apartments for health workers from far and wide including cleaners. Residences that could become unrestricted at any time. Neither is the council happy about its land being used for a private nursing home – despite 20 beds being allocated to patients of the Guildford & Waverley Commissioning Group and the county council. There is no written agreement.

Surrey County Council recently told Waverley councillors including the Cranleigh Parish Council Chairman,  that no joint budget for adult social care has been agreed yet between it and the NHS.

In a bizarre twist – a Cranleigh man is now calling for the old hospital to become a minor injuries unit and revert to being a Day Hospital – all of which was originally proposed in its replacement.

Here’s the petition link:

Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 16.33.42.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 16.04.58.pngScreen Shot 2019-01-15 at 16.05.16.pngScreen Shot 2019-01-15 at 16.05.38.png

Associated articles.

The great private nursing home debate goes on and on – ad nauseam.

Now THE real Cranleigh Village Hospital wade s in.


Cranleigh’s proposed new private nursing home is provoking a local storm.

Perhaps someone should tell Waverley Planners about​ the consultation on these new​ rules?


 Then our planners could mention  Environment Minister Michael Gove’s new rules to the developers who flout the present ones?  Because ‘Your Waverley’  is allowing trees, ancient hedges and woodland to be removed and damaged all over the Waverley borough?

It’s time to start taking enforcement action against wannabe developers who conveniently smash through trees and hedges to make way for developments before even applying for building consents? The public aren’t stupid, they are witnessing developers vandalising hedgerows and trees – long before the planning signs go up.

Will the suggestion of ‘tighter controls’ set out below apply to those  Trees covered by Preservation Orders in Farnham in Cranleigh, in Godalming, Ewhurst and Haslemere. – already lost?  Ask the people of Alfold what they think? Trees and hedges there were biting the dust before the ink was dry on recent planning consents!

Bewley Homes gallops into Farnham and rides roughshod all over ‘Your Waverley.’

Just a few days ago there was a public outcry over potential damage to Ancient Woodland and protected trees on a housing development in Wrecclesham.

Tighter controls could come into force on tree felling – but here’s how many developers regard our trees and hedgerows now. 

Screen Shot 2018-10-07 at 21.23.43

COMMUNITIES will be given greater powers to stop trees being felled under new plans just announced by environment secretary Michael Gove.

The measures reflect the important role trees in towns and cities play in improving health and wellbeing, as well as providing crucial environmental benefits.

Launching a consultation on a raft of new forestry measures, the secretary of state unveiled proposals designed to ensure local people have a bigger say over what happens to the trees in their communities.

The proposals include making sure communities have their say on whether street trees should be felled with requirements for councils to consult local residents; responsibilities on councils to report on tree felling and replanting to make sure the environment can be safeguarded for future generations; and giving the Forestry Commission more powers to tackle illegal tree felling and strengthen protection of wooded landscapes.

Mr Gove said: “It’s right the views of local people are at the heart of any decision that affects their community – and the futures of the trees that line their streets are no different.

“Trees have often been rooted in our towns and cities for many years, and are undoubtedly part of our local heritage.

“These measures will enhance the protection given to urban trees, ensuring residents are properly consulted before trees are felled and safeguarding our urban environment for future generations.”

Forestry Commission director of forest services Richard Greenhouse said: “The Forestry Commission recognises our trees and woodlands are under increasing pressure, especially in and around urban areas. With this consultation, we hope to be able to better protect more of our cherished woodlands from illegal felling.

“This consultation forms part of the government’s ongoing work to protect and promote precious trees, including a commitment to plant one million trees in towns and cities across the country, in addition to 11 million trees nationwide over the course of this parliament as part of a 25-year environment plan.”

Oh dear! Is a Godalming councillor being brought in by residents to fight Farnham’s corner?​



Screen Shot 2019-01-14 at 10.04.31.png

Fireman Sam attempts to get his constituents on side?


The WW put its hands up and admits to highlighting a Farnham councillor’s unseemly antics played out at a recently Waverley planning meetings.

Tory Councillor Sam Pritchard doth protest too much about not being contacted like his Farnham  Residents’ and other colleagues – about their objection to ‘Your Waverley’ building flats near a school in Ryle Road.

More here: Will Waverley’s voting fodder hold this Tory administration to account in 2019?

So worried is he with an election looming, that he called out to his constituents in the public gallery, after claiming he hadn’t heard from them, to ask them to stay after the meeting closed?

But not even a bleat, a grunt or admission of misbehaviour from the Chairman. He ignored conduct that is banned in the council chamber.   Chairman Isherwood stayed shtum, except of course to admonish Godalming Liberal Democrat Councillor Paul Follows for not leaving the public gallery quietly enough!! Bloody cheek.

Will Waverley’s voting fodder hold this Tory administration to account in 2019?

Also worth noting how Cllr Pritchard ‘protested’ he had received no contact from residents. 

They, of course, thought differently.  As they had emailed him and provided evidence of their concerns – and after receiving no response reverted to a Godalming Councillor who has a tried and tested reputation to listening to everyone’s concerns and turned up as a member of the public on the night.

Now Councillor Pritchard – a man not often in evidence at Waverley meetings – has waded in to defend his actions. And of course, it is all down to Waverley’s poor IT communications. No surprise there then. Let’s face it we have all experienced those. We heard its IT came from Rumbelows!

Now here at the WW, we like to give everyone a good crack of the whip – before the Monitoring Officer steps in?

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.00.22.pngSo this mysterious affliction that prevents Councillor Pritchard checking emails even vaguely regularly?  An affliction that doesn’t appear to have hit anyone else, including the opposition…? Possibly the same affliction that hit the Chairman – Wewishhewoodbe – de-selected –  when he ignored council protocol?



Stop Moaning Munro and do something​ about your patch.


This post on social featured below will send shivers down your spine – following the recent horrendous murder in Guildford.

The weapon used to kill Lee Pomeroy (51) has still not been found and police are appealing for anyone who may have seen anything suspicious at Waverley’s Frensham Great ponds car park early last Friday evening to contact them urgently. Detectives believe a  suspect with a young child may have been behaving in an unusual way. If you were in the vicinity and saw anything – please contact Surrey police.

Former Farnham Waverley Borough and Surrey County Councillor David Munro recently bleated about his ‘disappointment’ at not being reselected as the Conservative candidate for Surrey Police & Crime Commissioner.

Perhaps he should ask himself WHY? Here’s a social media clip we received. Like to comment on this Police & Crime Commissioner Munro?  You can contact us any time at

Screen Shot 2019-01-10 at 18.20.56.png

So PCC Munro – do you still want the job?


Guildford Train Murder – Farnham Man and Woman Charged

A man Farnham has been charged with the murder of Lee Pomeroy, 51, following an incident at Horsley station on January 4.

The victim was attacked within minutes of boarding a London train at London Road station, Guildford. He was accompanied by his 14-year-old son.

Darren Shane Pencille, 35, of Willbury Road, Farnham, has been charged with murder and possession of an offensive weapon in connection to a fatal incident on board a train from Guildford to London.

He has been charged with murder and his partner with assisting him in his escape.

Chelsea Mitchell, 27, of Willbury Road, Farnham, has also been charged with assisting an offender. She has been remanded in custody and will appear at Staines Magistrates’ Court tomorrow.

Surrey Police had earlier been given an additional 12 hours, following their arrest to question the suspects. They were arrested at their address in Willbury Road, Farnham.

Here’s what one Godalming resident thinks of Waverley Planners and developers – ASSHILL.


Screen Shot 2019-01-11 at 19.56.10

And there will be a chance to have your say at the ballot box in May.


A lesson on how ‘Your Waverley’ treats its residents, the countryside, town leaders, heritage groups,  European environmental law and its own Local Plan Part 2 with utter contempt.

Here’s a video of Michael Voison revealing  how Waverley and a developer joined together this week to knock yet another nail in the coffin of how NOT  to conduct public engagement. He spoke as the Joint Planning Committee sat to determine Ashill’s Scheme to build 262 “Grey Homes” on the “Green Fields” of Aarons Hill in Godalming. After his impassioned plea, they voted as a Tory block by 16 votes to two from its tiny internal opposition group and huge outside opposition. A decision witnessed by hundreds of residents from around the borough and abroad.

And … here’s how to give local residents a ticking off – Chairman Isherwood style.


Read related articles by clicking on the links below.

So Waverley’s door shut after Bolton…Bolted?

Godawfulming – here we come?

There are a lorra, lorra, Godalming residents preparing to turn out and object to the “Cash & Crash” brigade moving into their town.

So Waverley’s​ door shut after Bolton…Bolted?


So there you have it. The stable door opened and Bolton bolted…

… from standing up for his constituents – or at least being in attendance – to hear or take part in the controversial Ashill scheme to build 262 homes on former green belt land in Aarons Hill, Godalming?

It’s official!

The mealy-mouthed Andrew Bolton – Godalming’s  Ward Member for Godalming Central & Ockford doesn’t want to represent the views of the electorate who voted for him.

At least, not when it puts the member of Waverley’s Executive like Fagin in … a sticky situation! 

Screen Shot 2019-01-11 at 09.25.25


Screen Shot 2019-01-11 at 09.27.38

Perhaps none of his Tory colleagues would allow him to substitute for them. Not even the silent majority?


Although it is pretty obvious he had a different view from his ward counterpart Councillor Paul Follows – to which of course, he is truly entitled. Shouldn’t he at least have been standing alongside his Ward colleague to at least represent the huge number of objectors, by putting forward their views? Isn’t that what the voting fodder elected him to do?

Where was the cowardly little toad? The Portfolio holder for Waverley’s Environment – who couldn’t stand up in front of hundreds of objectors and at least defend his view that the environment of Godalming would be unharmed by this decision? That would have been straining his loyalty to the Executive just a little too far, wouldn’t it?

As the courageous and solitary Lib Dem Councillor Follows stood shoulder to shoulder with Farnham Residents’ councillor Gerry Hymn to ask a host of questions – the WW and residents wonder if they ever will get any answers?

This year, next year, sometime never? Perhaps someone in Waverley Towers will answer …

A starter for TEN.

WHY? there was such haste to approve an application which is included as a Strategic Site in the Local Plan Part 2 – which has been pulled until after the May elections due to much opposition from Tory-controlled Haslemere?

Here in Godalming, residents are fuming and this decision was the last straw and could cost the Tories dearly – because – neither the Waverley Web or decent men like Councillors Follows and Hyman were around at the last election – to turn the spotlight on this rotten borough of Waverley administration.

But we are now.

Godawfulming – here we come?

Here’s Councillor Follows speaking to the people of Waverley.


Godawfulming – here we come?



Undeterred by hundreds of residents packing out rooms in Waverley Towers – objections from hundreds more – including the town council, and with many more watching the website – Waverley Planners have inflicted an £82m development on Godalming for a developer’s sop of £3.8m for infrastructure. to shouts of – “we’ve been robbed.”

Was anyone missing? Yes, the one trick pony called Protect Our Waverley.

Screen Shot 2019-01-09 at 22.53.38.pngLocal resident Michael Voisin called the public consultation – “shambolic” calling the  Aarons Hill  development “flawed and unsustainable.”

If possible,  the WW will use a clip of his objections on behalf of residents in a separate post. Do we see a Judicial Review on the horizon?

He claimed, Waverley council too had a cavalier disregard for local consultation and had put another nail in the coffin in the meaning of the words – “full consultation.” Ignoring the heritage concerns of The Victorian Society and the National Trust on a highly valued Gertrude Jekyll garden.

Paul Follows the visibly fuming ward councillor for Ockford castigated the developers aptly named – ASShill – for not consulting properly with either residents or the Town Council. He claimed there were presently 395 unoccupied homes in Waverley and 405 second-homes – and yet the site removed by a Government Inspector from the Green Belt, for the proposed 265 homes had been accepted with scant regard to the strength of local opposition.

“I didn’t vote for the Local Plan, and I will not be voting for this.”

He said in five weeks time CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) would come into force – and by permitting this scheme now his ward would be “robbed” of £4m as, under the existing 106 arrangements, only £3.8m would be provided for infrastructure. Waverley’s only Lib Dem, who joined the council a year ago, blamed the Tory administration for not having a Local Plan earlier, therefore no CIL,  effectively shutting the door after all the horses had bolted.

Councillors wiped away crocodile tears as they sympathised with the problems Godalming faced with traffic generation in the areas of Eashing Lane and its junction with Portsmouth Road. And almost everyone was unimpressed with the design of the very “grey” homes, with inadequate parking, industrial style square chimneys, and flats resembling “prison barrack blocks.” But then went ahead and by …


Former portfolio for planning Councillor Brian Adams,  looking visibly relieved that he no longer held the post, saying there were lots of blocks of little houses with ugly square chimneys. Others argued that there were insufficient parking spaces, some in parking courts and homes with no garages.

But Godalming borough and county councillor Peter Martin argued the development would produce plenty of children for Green Oaks School, which was presently unviable and the £800,000 plus it would receive from the developer, may ensure its future. Can we hear the money talking?

Councillor Mary Foryszewski said in so many words that Cranleigh, which had no protection, had suffered enough and decisions on meeting the housing supply must be made “borough-wide.” Earlier planning officer Betty Boot handed out a veiled warning – that if development in one part of the borough was sacrificed, it could result in it going to another  – either Cranleigh or Farnham! Despite that Farnham Residents’ councillor, Jerry Hyman reiterated his mantra that it was “unlawful” for Waverley to grant permission without proper Habitats assessments, but was given a couple of kicks from Bet’s boot and a slap from two lawyers – one Waverley’s and the other Sleepy Goodridge now retired – hopefully soon for everyone’s good!

So there you have it. Godalming’s contribution to its’ housing requirement of 1,520 new homes in the Local Plan until 2032 has now reached 1,600 homes – and there are lots more to come as confirmed by Surrey County Council highwayman Richard Cooper.

He said developments at Milford Golf Course, Ockford Ridge and elsewhere had all been taken into account when assessing the accumulative increase on Godalming’s traffic. And – NO – there wouldn’t be improvements to pavements in Eashing Lane – at least not until the proposed Guildford Borough Council element of the development went ahead. However, he said there would be access improvements and the authority would fiddle around with the traffic lights to improve flows.

Better flows that, according to Godalming Councillor Peter Martin,  who is undoubtedly an expert fiddler, was down to him! You have to take your hat off to the man – don’t you?

Godalming social media seemed pretty disgruntled with the decision, with eagle-eyed serial FOI requester Daniel declaring war on the local Tories:

Screen Shot 2019-01-10 at 09.54.33.png

People in this post: Peter Martin: Tales of the unexpected as Surrey’s Mr Tickle resigns. Godalming’s Surrey County Councillor Peter Martin resigns as Chairman.


There are​ a lorra, lorra, Godalming residents preparing to turn out and object to the “Cash & Crash” brigade moving into their town.


‘Your Waverley’ is preparing extra space to accommodate the huge number of Godalming residents preparing to turn out for tonight’s Joint Planning Meeting.  But it could be standing room only?

Of course, we have our very own web hanging from the chamber’s dusty corners so will have a spider’s eye view.

The question is. Will councillors eager to keep their bums on their seats so close to a local election, defy Betty’s boot and overturn a recommendation to approve a huge development on former Green Belt land?

A scheme opposed by Godalming Town Council.


Here’s what planning officers are recommending for APPROVAL: 

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.19.17

Here’s where they want it:

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.39.55

And – here’s what they want to build? On land recently removed from the Green Belt.

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.24.54

There are so many hundreds of objections including a petition and those of Godalming Town Council – and parish councils around Godalming. The town council also claims there has been a lack of proper consultation. Lack of space prevents us from listing all objections – however, suffice to say most believe if this scheme is allowed it will turn Godalming into


This is due in part to the huge impact the development will have on – heritage buildings – hence objections from The National Trust and the Victorian Society. The detrimental impact on the environment and wildlife, nearby homes – including the HQ of TV Supervet Noel Fitzpatrick and The Meath Home. On roads, on air quality, and the local infrastructure.

But support comes from six supporters including some local businesses.

However, there are some winners – along with a long line of losers. These include developer contributions of £864, 452 to the Green Oaks School, which county education chiefs recommended closure just a short while ago! £939, 306 towards a project at Broadwater School; and £174,320 for a new nursery school. Funny how the county council now support Green Oaks school and the development when they can trouser a shedload of money isn’t it?

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.26.27

In total the ‘Cash and Grab brigade’ will have to stump up £3,832, 719.38, to include these, together with highway improvements. 

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.27.21

However, everyone in Godalming will be relieved to hear that Officers acknowledge that introducing this huge amount of concrete into an area of open agricultural land will undeniably result in an irreversible change to the landscape. But wait for it…

However, it will visually relate to the existing residential development in this context!


Here at the Waverley Web, we had a Pirates of Penzance (peed our pants) moment when we read the proposed names of the streets: Woodland Lanes, Field Edge, Mews Streets; and lots of parking courts and 13 visitor spaces. Not to mention “The Crows of Pearl Blossom Play Trail.”

Why not – Concrete Court, Yellow Brick Road, or Asphalt Alley?

JHC – you couldn’t make it up.

We have included a clip from the report because we thought you wouldn’t believe us.

if you want another laugh: Here’s a tweet from Godalming’s Lib Dem councillor Paul Follows:

…as I work full time I asked if the site visit could be at 8am or 9am (it was in the diary for 10am) … I was told it couldn’t be because it was thought that councillors and officers could not make it that time of the day WITH ALL THE TRAFFIC.


Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.23.31.png



Could these petrol heads soon be on their way to Dunsfold? Not if -some of the​ neighbours – have anything to do with it?



Screen Shot 2019-01-03 at 20.28.17.png

The employees of Guildford company Gordon Murray Designs hoping to make their way to Dunsfold Park soon. 

Proving there’s no rest for the wicked, whilst the rest of us were tucking into turkey burger, turkey curry, turkey fritters, turkey sandwiches and turkey slaw, whilst letting out our belts another notch – or two (or three in the case of our Editor!)  the rump end of Protect Our Waverley was gearing up for yet another battle with the Dunsfold Developer.

Yes, we know you thought we’d left all that behind when we said goodbye to 2018 – when the High Court found in favour of Waverley Borough Council’s Local Plan and Capt’n Bob indicated he was throwing in the towel as far as the Dunsfold Developer was concerned – but Little Britton and Co appear to have spent the festive season – whilst the rest of us were guzzling English Sparkling (best get used to it with Brexit looming!)  – pouring over a planning application from Gordon Murray Design, to relocate from its Shalford premises, which they’ve outgrown, to a new facility at Dunsfold Park

For those of you who don’t know, Gordon Murray (GMD) has a global reputation as one of the finest automotive design teams in the world. To give you a flavour of what they do, at an end of year press release the Company announced:

‘At our 50-year celebration event last year, we announced two of our own products, the first of which is high volume mid-rear engined sports car platform – T.43 which we launched at the Low Carbon Vehicle event in September this year. We already have potential customers interested in this platform. The second product is a limited edition supercar which promises to re-write the supercar rulebook once again, just as the McLaren F.1 did in 1992 [Gordon Murray joined the Brabham Formula One Team as Technical Director, winning two world championships (1981 & 1983) during his 17 years with the team. … The Company’s first project, the F1 Road Car is still regarded as the world’s best-engineered car].

‘We had a very successful launch with the ‘Ox to India’ programme earlier this month and it is great to see the little truck working in its element providing mobility and services in remote villages. We have already had interest from several prospective customers in possible volume production. The final design and the launch in India were made possible partly by crowdfunding and partly by our partners Shell. All in all, a great success.

‘We have been working on the design of the all-new Gordon Murray Group Headquarters campus which we will be announced in January and our engineering teams are currently engaged on multiple iStream® projects, so 2019 looks like being a very busy year.’

So there you have it, folks, a successful British engineering company, currently based in Shalford and Dunsfold Park, wants to expand and consolidate post-Brexit and, not unnaturally, Dunsfold Park, a hop, skip and a jump away up the A281, has caught its eye.

But, sadly, it’s like a clarion call to the usual suspects – with Little Britton leading the charge!

Whilst having the nous to acknowledge that ‘There are clear merits for this kind of development taking place within the Dunsfold Aerodrome Strategic Site identified in the Local Plan’, Little Britton and Co can’t understand why GMD has submitted a stand-alone application?

 It’s as plain as the nose on your face and we are just planning laypersons!  Its obvious GM’s team hasn’t cobbled this planning application together overnight but clearly spent many months thinking about what it needs to prosper. Until December 2018 due, in no small part to the antics of Little Britton and  Protect our Waverley, Dunsfold Park’s future was, after 16 long years, still uncertain. Neither the Dunsfold Developer nor, more importantly, GMD could place any reliance on the High Court ruling in favour of development at Dunsfold Park so to include their planning application as part of the high-jeopardy Dunsfold Park Master Plan would have been foolhardy, to say the least!

No wonder it lodged a separate application from the existing Master Plan; pretty bloody stupid, commercially speaking, to have done anything else.

Should they now do a U-turn, because PoW has thrown in the towel, and resubmit their application as part of the finally consented Master Plan? Why would they? Just because Little Britton and his neighbours want them to? That’s like asking an oil tanker to turn around and put out to sea again just after its just docked, before its unloaded!

Business needs certainty and few have the luxury of waiting on the whims of Waverley residents who have demonstrated, time and again that they’re only interested in their interests. Little Britton bemoans the fact that the boundary of his property is only 500 metres from the site boundary. in both the East, West, North and South of the borough others face the same situation. But they chose to live in the countryside, not adjoining an airfield – and the largest brownfield site in Waverley.

Post Brexit – regardless of their views on the subject – it behoves Local Authorities and the Government to put their best foot forward and ensure nothing stands in the way of jobs and prosperity in a brave new post-Brexit Britain.

WW heard one notable eejit at the Dunsfold Park Planning Inquiry diss the development because there were no jobs at the Business Park for his clever-clogs son. Typical Tory Tosser, he assumed the ‘sink estate’ was only home to scaffolding companies, Cranleigh Freight, MoT garages and their ilk – all low-paid, low-skilled jobs that simply weren’t good enough for his university-educated little snowflake. If he’d bothered to do his homework – like any well-educated nob would – he’d have realised that Dunsfold Park is home to a number of hi-tech and innovative companies and now Gordon Murray has designs on it too.

The moral of this tale? Be careful what you wish for!!! What goes around, comes around and often rears up and bites you on the bum. If Little Britton hadn’t dragged out the Battle for Dunsfold Park, Gordon Murray Design could, no doubt would have included its application as part of the Master Plan … but then, of course, he wouldn’t have anything to complain about and it seems to us people like Little Britton simply don’t know what to do with themselves if they don’t have something to hitch their wagon too!

God help Awfold Parish Council when he gets his claws well and truly into it … because as one councillor was heard to say at a council meeting – we don’t need homes and we certainly don’t need jobs.



Will Waverley’s voting fodder hold this Tory administration​ to account in 2019?


 Will the residents of Waverley put new brooms in to sweep Waverley Towers clean?

This week the Western Area Planning Committee refused an application by…wait for it?


Watch out there’s an election about!

‘Your Waverley’ put before its own council planning committee an application to build two one-bed flats on land in Ryle Lane. An unofficial space used regularly by local people to park near Highfield South Farnham School.

Despite a public gallery crammed with objectors Farnham’s Councillor Sam Pritchard said he was “struggling” to oppose the scheme – as he had not received any objections, and the highway authority had raised no concerns.

Here at the WW, we didn’t think Surrey highways even look at planning applications any more, judging by their lack of concerns?

However, Councillor David Beaman couldn’t have been more opposed.“Here this evening we have faced applications for garden grabbing and now we are considering car park grabbing. I have a real problem being asked to make a decision on land owned by this authority – it is ridiculous that we should be asked to decide on a scheme on land Waverley owns. Of course, we need housing but If we allow this there will be very real traffic problems here.”

“We have better, and more suitable sites than this,” said Carole Cockburn, where will parents park – we should not be doing anything in Ryle Road in a hurry, it is not a comfortable road to either drive in or park in – so I certainly won’t support this.”

Gerry Hyman said the council had to be scrupulously careful when considering its own applications. “We would not be allowing anyone else to do it, so why should we?’

After the plan was unanimously refused…

 Tory Councillor Sam Pritchard called out to the public gallery – “I don’t want any of my constituents to think that I am ignoring them. So perhaps I could appeal to those in the public gallery to stay behind so that I can talk to them.”

If Councillor Hyman had done that WW bets he would have been off to see the Monitoring Officer before his bum had hardly left his seat! Let’s see if the Tory Tosser gets away with it?

Screen Shot 2019-01-02 at 20.50.08.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-02 at 20.51.24.png24862079_10155918338976613_2607840564800582419_n.jpg

Now THE real Cranleigh Village Hospital wade​s in.


Did a Cranleigh man get the answers to the great private nursing home debate?

Well, Cranleigh’s Andy Webb is beginning to get some of the answers now. And straight from The League of Friends Chairman’s highly trusted mouth. We understand from the CVHT website she was a former Trustee of the charity but resigned – along with Trustees Michael Newman and Kay Newman.

The WW asks? WHY?

Perhaps they would contact us at

An update from Cranleigh Hospital League Of Friends…… to Andy Webb – of the Alternative Cranleigh Board.

Hello Andy

My name is Dianne Davies, Chairman of the League of Friends of Cranleigh Village Hospital, and I am happy to answer the questions you raise.

You are right in saying that CVHT and the League of Friends are entirely separate charities whose funds are not connected at all. Whilst CVHT are ensuring that there are 20 NHS beds free at the point of entry in the new nursing home on the Knowle Lane site, being built by HC-1, the League is spending funds (£400,000) on the installation of an X-Ray and ultrasound department at the village hospital which should be operational by Easter and is entirely funded by the League. We also provide £10,000 to the Health Centre to fund new equipment every year and we support End of Life at home services through a donation of £25,000 every year to Phyllis Tuckwell who provide this service for the CCG to our community.

Yes, we hope to provide an MRI scanner at the hospital when the RSCH clinicians are ready to do so but would need to start fundraising again for this. The scanner requires an upgrading of the electricity service to Cranleigh and there are several agencies involved so we depend on their speed of operating!! The installation of the XRay department will enable other Outpatient services to be developed in the village hospital and we will make funding available for equipment as needed.

Yes, we were left a property several years ago and, under the terms of the will, the house was sold and the money added to the League’s funds.

We do not receive money from any source other than donations from the community. We do not receive monies from any statutory agencies and we have done no public fundraising for the last 10 years although, as you may have seen, we have recently installed collection buckets in the Co-op in Cranleigh, at their invitation. All the funds raised from these will go towards Outpatient and diagnostic services at the village hospital.

Day Hospitals are not favoured by the NHS at present but, like you, I would like to see far more services for the elderly developed in Cranleigh. Minor Injury services are dictated at regional if not national level. We would support any such development at the hospital but clinical governance is an issue for small units. We work closely with RSCH and I will raise this issue again – I know how popular it would be. You could discuss this with the GPs, their support would be invaluable and Dr Diane Christie is one of our Directors.

So there you have it – straight from the Chairman.

CVHT and the League of Friends funds are not connected.

But this raises even more questions: Why did the good doctor tell Mr Webb – nothing to do with the WW we stress, that money raised by his charity went to another charity (L of F)? And why is it claiming to be a part of that orgnisation? 

Why doesn’t the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust hold a public meeting and answers villagers questions? Come clean – and tell it as it is? Don’t donors deserve the truth before they are asked to come up with even more money for their health services? 

Why have Trustees – including Mrs Davis resigned?

Why are 26 bedsits needed when so much development is being provided elsewhere? Why is the CVHT even mentioning  the possibility of the NHS not funding beds after five years. 

Has a contract been signed with the health and social caare providers? If not, why not?

The list of questions goes on and on…

Did a Cranleigh man get the answers to the great nursing home debate?



Cranleigh Photographer Andy Webb who runs the Alternative Cranleigh Community Board – because the official Cranleigh Community Board didn’t like his questions – has met with the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust.

The Charity will shortly have its planning application heard by Waverley Planners. Although the charity’s name suggests otherwise, it intends to build a private nursing home – operated by HC-One on land once owned by villagers. Included will be 20 ‘community beds’  operated by the county council and the local health services for the people within its area of operation.

It will also include residential accommodation (28 flats) for any health workers in the region including cleaning staff. A block to be built by A2 Dominion a company who boasts one of the CVHT trustees as a director, with access off Knowle Lane. 

Did Mr Webb get the answers to the questions posed by the residents of Cranleigh and the “nearby” villages who donated their money to build a replacement hospital? 

Ten out of ten for trying Mr Webb – who we should point out is nothing to do with the Waverley Web.

Here’s his update written based on information with which he was provided by CVHT Trustees in blue italics. Our comments in red.

Good afternoon and a happy new year.
After my meeting with some of the trustees of CVHT here are some of the answers I got. Firstly they did say that they could have been more forthcoming with information. I have agreed to be a go-between for them to give me any updates or ask questions on your behalf.

The CVHT have been in receipt of £1.15m over 17 years which has been used up in legal fees, planning applications and admin. Most of the money raised actually went to the League Of Friends who have a kitty of £2.9m. Some of the people who donated money made cheques and gave cash directly to the League Of Friends. There was talk of a house being donated to the CVHT but I was told that it was actually left to the League Of Friends.

UNTRUE All the money raised during the fundraising campaign to replace Cranleigh’s old hospital was collected by CVHT and not the League of Friends. 

Residents had contributed to The L of F since the old hospital was established over 150 years ago, long before the CVHT charity was established. The money donated to the League has and will continue to be, completely separate according to one of its members who has contacted us at the WW.

We are told by the L of F that numerous attempts have been made by CVHT to trouser its funds, without success.

I think some thought that the 2 charities were linked but they are not.
We won’t be getting our old hospital back as the main objective of CVHT was to get the care beds back in Cranleigh.

Not true: The Charity was set up to replace the old hospital and day hospital. Erroneous information has been peddled by some, who shall be nameless, that facilities proposed in the old cottage hospital are linked to CVHT!

The CVHT has nothing to do with the hospital anymore.
Cranleigh Village Hospital does not belong to the trust The Village Hospital was in effect nationalised I believe in 1948 when the NHS was formed. So it became an NHS asset. There is more detail on the CVHT website.

The Day Hospital which adjoins the old hospital was built by public subscription through a fundraising campaign, according to press coverage.

The beds could not be reopened in the Village Hospital because the then Primary Care Trust would not support it clinically or financially. That position has been maintained by the CCG who replaced the PCT. They prefer the proposal to include the Community Beds in the Care Home as there is no capital cost to them and the Care Home operator provides the nursing staff. The only option was to find a care home that would allow them to have a share of community beds.

WHY? Because Surrey County Council has closed down homes including Cobgate’s here in Farnham and Longfields in Cranleigh – thereby reducing the number of available beds by hundreds. The county council will now flog off the Longfields site for housing development, as they are proposing here in Farnham. 

If the NHS or SCC cut the funding CVHT will have to fund the shortfall. The beds will be open to the Waverley area as the old hospital beds were to a certain extent.

UNTRUE. The beds in the old hospital, according to a former nurse who has written to us, were seldom used by anyone other than residents of Cranleigh and the nearby villages. They were not for the wider Waverley community!
There will be facilities for long-term care for dementia and life-limited patients. The land that the care home will be built on will remain the property of the trust. The staff block will be for care worker/NHS staff including cleaners and porters etc. I think they will have to be recommended for accommodation by their employers.

So Cranleigh people through its parish council hand over a valuable piece of land in the centre of the town for £1 to enable a private developer to build a nursing home and homes for patients & health workers from around the area? When there are empty beds in Cranleigh nursing homes? Will this include health workers from other private nursing homes in and around the area?
The rent will be an estimated £550 per month including bills. The money from this will go directly to the trust. If after 5 years the NHS/SCC decide they will pull the funding, the trust has the option to lease the beds out.

To whom? Surely not to the private nursing home?
The X-Ray machine is being installed at the moment and should be up and running by Easter. Regarding the MRI scanner, they (L Of F) is looking at ways of funding that.

Surely not from another local fund-raising campaign?

Haven’t Cranleigh people been shafted enough already? They were promised a replacement Community Hospital, and a  Day Hospital with facilities to hopefully include minor injuries – weren’t they?
Robin Fawkner Corbett did say that the Village Hospital beds were never strictly for just Cranleigh residents if there was someone from outside the area that needed a bed they would give it to them.

So perhaps this should have been made clear to all the people who donated funds. Is Dr Fawkner Corbett going to police who occupies the beds now and in the years ahead? And exactly what does “out of the area” mean?

I asked who will be the doctors for the new care home? The care home can choose any local medical practice, Cranleigh School now uses the doctors at Shere for its pupils!!!

Ah! So if the Cranleigh practice doesn’t want to trouser a contract with the Private Nursing Home, the Shere practice, or maybe Farnham’s or Haslemere’s or Uncle Tom Cobblers, can,  and will, admit their patients?

Mr Webb ends with…
So, all in all, I got some answers but we will never get our hospital back as it was. I came out feeling a bit more positive but it needs looking into a bit more.
I am going to contact the NHS to see if there is any possibility of having a minor injury clinic in Cranleigh medical practice. They already have a paramedic but we need more than that.
If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me and I will try and get an answer for you. This doesn’t stop here, we still need more answers and more facilities either at the hospital or in the medical practice.
Thank you for your support.

So who dares wins here? Surrey County Council which closes its nursing homes with 150+ beds sells off the sites,   bags 20 beds paid for by the people over there in the East of the borough to benefit the rest of Waverley?

Who is the biggest loser? Cranleigh Parish Council and the people of Cranleigh and around. Who may never trust a charity ever again?

Thank you to all those who contacted us – and keep it up. You can reach us in confidence at



Do our county councillors realise how many holiday dramas occurred​ – thanks to potholes​​?​


Doctors couldn’t reach their patients, nurses were stuck on the roadside awaiting recovery and essential services were disrupted thanks to our pot-holed roads. What an unholy mess!

Is Surrey sinking – just like the Titanic?

Screen Shot 2018-12-23 at 19.51.57.png

Last year, half a million potholes were reported to local councils, and it certainly feels to us, that most of them are in Surrey. The crumbling state of Surrey’s roads was the topic of conversation over many  Christmas get-togethers. Visitors to the county were astounded by the state of our roads. “If this is wealthy prosperous Surrey – then come to the West,” said one.

As most of those who claimed they had suffered ripped tyres, hadn’t actually reported incidents, because it takes up too much time and effort, that half a million figure is not the true picture.  That is just the tip of the iceberg. Some who had claimed were refused compensation for reasons which, they couldn’t understand.

Some roads in Surrey are now being avoided altogether as the routes are so dangerous as the frequency of resurfacing has declined. Others are being re-surfaced in parts, lulling motorists into a sense of false security as the drive in a stop-go fashion. Why would any sensible highway engineer deem it sensible to resurface a strip of a hundred yeards or so, and then leave a pot-holed length and then resurface another short stretch further along?

It is one thing for those travelling into Surrey from further afield to have their time with family and friend ruined by smashed tyres, it is quite another when wards, surgeries and clinics, even ambulances and fire engines cannot be properly manned, due to broken down vehicles.

And, it is no excuse for our supposedly cash-strapped local authorities to say they just don’t have the money to repair our roads properly, when they are using OUR money to fund developments like Farnham’s East Street to provide the town with 28 more shops! Is it?

Shops are closing… all around us… Merry Christmas everyone.



Oh,​ What folly! – Another Farnham field bites the dust – thanks to an unelected Government Inspector.


The unrelenting determination to target the towns of Farnham and Cranleigh to meet Waverley’s housing targets continued this week.Screen Shot 2018-12-31 at 10.27.41.png

An unelected Government Inspector has over-ruled a democratically elected planning authority, and the will of  Farnham residents, by allowing 100 new homes in Folly Hill.

 Waverley planning officers refused the scheme on fields south of Upper Old Park Lane on a site occupying part of the medieval Farnham Old Park, using their delegated powers.

Many hundreds of Farnham people objected to Catesby Estates Ltd and Bewley Homes plans. But the determined developers refused to take NO for an answer and lodged an appeal.

Now a government inspector Philip J Asquith has sent an Exocet missile into Waverley’s Local Plan and blown a gaping hole in Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan!

He claims Waverley has a “significant shortfall” in its delivery of housing against government targets, and specifically its ability to deliver enough housing to meet demand over the next five years.”

He said: “I consider the council’s stance on a five-year housing land supply to be somewhat optimistic.”


Shops are closing… all around us… Merry Christmas everyone.


Surrey County Council comes in at No 3 in our Top of the Shops spending spree chart.

The scale of these casino investments is eye-watering!

This is the story with all the recent data:


Screen Shot 2018-12-04 at 13.31.29.pngThe public overwhelmingly believes councils should provide greater transparency on property investments, a survey by YouGov shared exclusively with the Bureau has found. Our investigation reveals some of the smallest local authorities in England have amassed debts the equivalent of more than ten times their spending power to buy commercial property such as shopping centres, supermarkets and business parks. The number of councils investing in real estate to generate revenue has doubled in the past two years.

Councils say the deals are low risk and bring in extra revenue to replace funding cut by central government. However, some experts have warned borrowing to fund the purchases ties the future of vital public services to the uncertainty of the property market.

Tis the season to be jolly? Isn’t it?


Screen Shot 2018-12-22 at 09.45.52.png

Deck the halls with boughs of holly
Fa la la la la, la la la la 
‘Tis the season to be jolly
Fa la la la la, la la la la 
Don we now our gay apparel
Fa la la la la, la la la la 
Troll the ancient Yuletide carol
Fa la la la la, la la la la

Yes, folks, it’s the time of year for a little festivity and reflection over the Rhubarb Gin and here, at the Waverley Web, before we hang up our quills for the seasonal frivolities of the New Year we would like to take the time to remind you of some of the highlights of 2018. We will also remind you of some of the moments you may want to forget!

The New Year kicked off with Waverley residents moaning about the reduced hours of the borough’s recycling facilities and being told to get in their 4x4s and travel to Witley!   Many were not impressed – their Chelsea Tractors, with surround sound and plush leather seats, were designed to travel in style not loaded with detritus!  Some threatened to regularly recreate Bonfire Night at the bottom of their garden, others quietly went for an evening jaunt and … fly-tipped!  Result: Surrey County Council found itself footing a £800,000 clear-up bill!  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot …
Over here in Farnham, we end the year on a sour note – that has nothing to do with the Sour Cherry Gin one of our numbers has been distilling for our Christmas festivities – after learning that our own recycling centre- and another over there in Cranleigh – face the big heave-ho!  Apparently, that’s Surrey County Council’s idea of progress!  
Meanwhile, parish councils may make Bonfire Night a monthly event. They could suggest residents pile up their detritus on village greens and Farnham Park and get together to light the fire and exchange gossip over a hot toddy/glass of Pimms?  
See the blazing yule before us
Fa la la la la, la la la la 
Strike the harp and join the chorus
Fa la la la la, la la la la 
Follow me in merry measure
Fa la la la la, la la la la 
Elsewhere, the Berkeley Bunnies continued burrowing in Cranleigh.  Unfortunately – or fortunately, as far as they were concerned! – they claimed they couldn’t see the wood for the ancient trees, which they were felling at an alarming rate.  Typically, POW was nowhere to be seen!  And, with not a breath of opposition from Capt’n Bob, Little Britten and their motley crew, nor a word of criticism from Waverley Planners, job done the Berkeley Bunnies then set their sights on Farnham – and now they’ have demolished the Woolmead! With no affordable homes! We’re tempted to say, they breed like … but we’re advised by our legal eagles that could be misinterpreted as derogatory to rabbits! And…Batty Bamford has the police onto us!
Screen Shot 2018-12-22 at 09.45.52.png
Paul Follows (don’t mention the word Liberal Democrat) Waverley’s new boy on the block started to flex his muscles and irritate everyone at Waverley Towers by asking questions and demanding answers. Some of which he is still waiting for! Who the hell does he think he is … Jeremy Hunt?! Will he get answers? Oh no he won’t!!
Godalming was re-named by locals, Godawfulming after too many scandals to mention – and the less said the better about the former Mayor who has joined the real chain gang rather than the Mayoral one! 
One we will mention, though, is the Hot Air Scandal.  No, silly billies!  Not the one where  JPC Chairman, Peter Isherwood, and his Deputy, Oh-Carole Cockburn, made derogatory remarks about the villages of Cranleigh and Ewhurst when they – now who’s the silly billies?! – forgot to turn off their microphones. No, we’re referring to the Air Quality Scandal when the police were called in to investigate some dodgy goings on in Damien – The Omen’s – department. Needless to say, an underling has been charged and The Omen has bu****** off to pastures new where he’s pocketing another gold-plated salary and pension.
So, there you have it, folks, Waverley Residents get the Dupes of the Year Award and Waverley Borough Council gets the Liar of The Year Award.
Yes, we know you were all betting on Capt’n Bob Lies receiving that one and, we must confess, it was a close run thing but, in the end, Waverley pipped Capt’n Bob to the post.
Talking of Capt’n Bob, it’s been a pretty miserable year for him: not only did a local tradesman name him and shame him for not paying his bills, after 16 years of blood, sweat and chaffing, the Dunsfold Developer finally swept all before him and got his planning consent in the teeth of Capt’n Bob’s lies.
Screen Shot 2018-12-22 at 09.30.51.png
And in the aftermath of Charles William Orange Esq, of Hascombe Place, letting his facade, as a genial local squire, slip when his buttons were pushed at the Public Inquiry into Dunsfold Park and he reverted to his factory settings and revealed what a nasty little hypocrite he is, he was outed as a developer in his own right – in other people’s back gardens, not his own!  What shameless hypocrites some people are.  They hurl unpleasant abuse – about people who live on sink-estates – and tell any lie, all in pursuit of their own NIMBY ambitions.  In these days of social media, you can’t get away with it – what goes on in the Parish Council used to stay in the Parish Council … now it goes on the Waverley Web!  As Crystal Tipps (AKA Widow Twanky) and Nick Pidgeon found out to their cost!
Another  REWARD notice went out for Dr Andrew Povey – best known as Our Little Povey – after he de-bunked his predecessor Alan Young. By the way, has anyone heard of Kodak Pete since his de-selection? And has anyone over there in the East seen or heard of Our Little Povey – other than bidding for the county council head honcho’s job? Didn’t he say something about stopping the over-development of Cranleigh?  Well, we’ve only one question for Our Little Povey: WHEN?
There was lots of angst about building on flood plains over there in the East and lots of angst about kicking the bats out of the Belfry at Farnham’s Blightwells. Needless to say, homes are being built on stilts on the flood-plains and the bats have bu*****d off to Basingstoke in hot pursuit of the former Chief Planning Officer!  Talk about bats – and rats – abandoning a sinking ship!
Screen Shot 2018-12-22 at 09.33.46.png
Poor old Potty has been driven dotty leading ‘Your Waverley’ through the mire into which her Local Plan looked set to sink. But, bolstered by her rave reviews on the Waverley Web (we blame those fishnets!) and the well-honed (not to mention expensive) skills of some notable Rumpoles, she has done a fine job of keeping the Waverley Train on the tracks – so far!  It just goes to show, give a girl the right stockings and she can conquer the world!  Poor Old Capt’n Bob and Little Britten never stood a chance once La Potts took over the helm of the Good Ship Waverley.
After a tough year at the coal face, Liz the Biz – AKA Betty Boot – announced she was hanging up her hobnails and retiring on a high!  Waverley has, after all, an adopted Local Plan under the guidance of Liz the Biz and La Potts.  Something a motley collection of their predecessors – Richard Shut-the-Gates, Robert Knowless and Matthew Evans – singularly failed to achieve.  Just goes to show, if you want something doing, put a woman in charge!!!
For the coming year, those of you with shares in Tiger Balm (which we’re reliably informed has been a regular bulk-buy from Amazon under Betty Boot’s leadership) may want to brace yourselves for a fall in the share price following Liz the Biz’s departure.  
Poor old Hodge the Bodge – leader of the County Council – couldn’t stand Our Little Povey breathing down his neck …, or did slicing squillions off the council’s spending plans all became too much for him? Either way, he resigned as Leader and as Councillor for Warlingham.
It would be very remiss of us not to mention Farnham Residents’ very own Mungo Jerry who, with cat-like-cunning, has refused to be quashed by Betty’s boot or slain by Potty’s whip over the lack of “a proper assessment of the Borough’s Special Protection Areas” (SPA’s).
We could, of course, go on and on and on and on and on … because there have been so many priceless goings-on in the Borough of Waverley again this year but as it’s the season of goodwill we’re going to be kind and draw a line there.
Our apologies to those who are miffed not to get a mention in this year’s highlights – the Lettuce King, Andy Cranleafy, A Touch of Frost, By-Pass Byham, Sleepy Goodridge, to name but a few … it’s not that you’re not worthy of a mention, it’s just that it’s a busy time of year.  But, don’t fret, we’ll still be here next year and we’ll be only too happy to give you prime time as and when you do something to deserve it!
We would like to wish our contributors and followers a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Thank you for all your comments and your e-mails, they’re what inspire us and enable us to keep this blog going.
We would also like to thank our local authorities, councillors and statutory agencies for giving us the material to give us a laugh, make us cry, and w promise to keep them on their toes and provide us all with many more memorable moments. 
Screen Shot 2018-12-22 at 09.45.52.png

Roll on 2019.


Who do you think​ they are?


Here’s your Yuletide Parlour Game – beats charades any day – Happy Christmas to one and all.

Never mind celebrities tracing their family trees to discover their origins, the Waverley Web has a far more interesting game afoot. It’s the 21st century’s answer to the 19th-century card game …


Forget whiling away the long, dark, Christmas nights playing Scrabble and watching Torville and Dean, or the Strictly Special, instead indulge in our new game of Speculation for all the family (patent pending!) AKA Whose Initials are they?


Following Alfold Parish Council’s reluctant acknowledgement of its Money Dealing activities on behalf of the Dirty Dozen (AKA the Parish Councils) who subsequently became known as Little Briton’s Seven and Protect Our Little Corner, Crystal Tipps Weddell recently opened her Cash Books revealing the astonishing extent of her money gathering operations – take it from us, the Widow Twanky had nothing on Crystal Tipps!

Although some donations had no acknowledgement – which one would think would cause some raised eyebrows, at the very least, amongst the Council’s Auditors – Crystal Tipps did inscribe initials against some donations, thus giving birth to our delightful new Yuletide parlour game!

We anticipate – and apologies in advance – for the not inconsiderable angst this is going to create in some households amongst those who have heretofore blithely given the impression to friends and neighbours that they donated BIG BUCKS to ‘The Cause’ but haven’t. Sorry to out you stingy buggers so publically but, as a gesture of goodwill, if you want to send us an email, we’ll happily publicise your donation here on the Waverley Web!

Brace yourselves! Below, we give you the Waverley Web’s very own version of The Sunday Times’ Rich List

Donation Initials       Name?
£5,000       HO
£1,250       RG
£2,500       RG
£2,500       PW                 Peter Winkworth?
£100          MM                Miriam Margolyes? Surely not? This successful Grand Dame of stage and screen would have dug a little deeper, but perhaps she felt she’d done her bit with a voice-over for POW’s PR campaign?
£2,500       BE
£25            DW                  Can’t be Denise Wordsworth? Bless her. She hides nothing? 
£500          AB
£2,500       JH
£500          CH
£10,000     MS
£20            BM
£5,000       MS
£500          AG                    Alan Groundless? Surely not? He’s renowned locally for being as tight as a duck’s ass!
£100          RB
£100          SF
£125          RN
£50            KH
£100          DE
£600          NPL
£100          HA
£500          CC
£100          FP
£1,000       SW
£1,000       VD                Sounds unpleasant … what idiots gave their child those initials?!
£500          AB
£2,500       MS
£2,500       SA
£2,500       VD                 Surely there can’t be two people with the same initials? That would be too much of a coincidence!
£5,000       OH
£300.00     GP                A bit stingy when you consider how many GPs there are in Waverley –  and what they earn!!!

£20.00      H
£2,500      PW                Not Peter Winkworth again, surely? But he’s never made any secret of how much he hates the DD.
£2,500      JW                
£5,000      KI                  Could be a typo. Did Crystal Tipps mean KPI?
£25           AJ                   Surely not! AJ from Strictly?
£2,500      HG
£500         CH
£2,500      SL
£5,000      RC
£100         RTH
£500         AB
£2,500      JH
£5,000      CO                   Charles Orange Esq? Surely not, Crystal Tipps would have called him OJ!
£100         BP
£1000       TD
£5,000      JH
£100         RK
£25           KL
£500         JB
£250         JHS
£2,000      VF
£2,000      CL
£250         LHD
£300         JM                     Jenny Masding?
£1,000     HS

Screen Shot 2018-11-10 at 21.59.43.png

Congratulations Beverley. Another act in the Awfold pantomime ?

Yesterday… no room at the Inn. To-day no room in the bin?


No room at the Inn for 24 Cranleigh families?


Screen Shot 2018-12-22 at 09.33.46.pngAs we prepare for the Christmas festivities, unleash foodstuffs and gifts from their plastic/wooden cardboard containers – dozens of them – let’s spare a thought for those poor old Surrey County and Waverley Borough councillors. Because after Christmas and the closure of the consultation period on January 4 the county council has to get to grips with the conundrum?  To close or not to close our recycling centres here in Farnham and in Cranleigh? And if they do, our borough councillors may have to pick up the detritus in their ‘bring bins?’

Sadly, Cranleigh looks a dead cert as its RC is deemed (by the county council) to be the least used RC in the county!  And anyway, its residents claim they live in a village? However, Farnham people have almost raised the Riot Act in their opposition to the closure of its huge town recycling centre. Particularly as we will be forced to cross the county boundary into Hampshire, and pay for the privilege of using its facilities.

So what will we all do in 2019? Stop buying and giving? Stop gardening? Stop moving house and extending our properties? Shall we have Bonfire Night every month? Or shall we demand that our essential services remain, and local government staff no long receive final salary pensions – and live like the rest of us who lost ours years ago?

Screen Shot 2018-12-22 at 09.45.35.png




No room at the Inn for 24 Cranleigh families?


Screen Shot 2018-12-23 at 10.06.32.png

It may be Christmas Time, Mistletoe & Wine for some of us – but it is more like a Bleak Mid-Winter for the residents of Penwerris- a home of multiple occupancies in Cranleigh New Town. They learned just before Christmas they are about to lose their homes.

Because the property at 124 – 118 Horsham Road, Cranleigh will soon be demolished to make way for a block of 24 des reses for over 55’s (oh! and that’s old in planner-speak). And a few houses – which are now “bungalows” in planner-speak. By  Renaissance Retirement. A one bedroom flat according to the company’s site will cost around £450,000. A snip really?

When the 24 families, including young children, heard Waverley Planning Officers say that their particular homelessness circumstances were…

 not a planning issue” and they would be dealt with by “our housing department`” and  once evicted would be offered accommodation in “a Woking hostel.” 

No Waverley hostels? Really…None? No room in our Inn?

So they can all sleep soundly in their beds this Chrismas in the full knowledge that all will be well? Won’t it?

 Cranleigh councillor Patricia Ellis declared an interest in the scheme, presumably because she wants to occupy one of the des reses? One of the Stennett duos voted against the other half voted for the scheme – which balances things out nicely.

 Cranleigh Councillors and Deputy Mayor Mary Foryszewski voted for the scheme but has since offered her help to the grieving families, which will no doubt reassure them but Councillor Elizabeth Townsend was vehemently opposed and said so in her own inimitable style. 

So the onward march of concrete continues unabated over there in Cranleigh – and in the New Year, there will no doubt, be more to come? Maybe, just maybe, just a few of those oh! so desirable affordable homes coming Cranleigh’s way will be providing a bed or two for the residents of Penwerris? After all, isn’t that who they are being built for – or is it downsizers from London?

Let’s hope the Sorry Advertiser, a regular reader of the Waverley Web, picks this up and runs with it and gives is a splash all over its front page?

 Screen Shot 2018-12-23 at 09.12.00.png
Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 19.07.36.png

Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 19.10.11.png




PPP…​Pick up a Parking ticket? Or go around in circles?


Screen Shot 2018-12-22 at 09.32.23.png

Or you could just around and around in ever decreasing circles here in Farnham – just looking for a parking spot!

Here’s a letter from David Wyle – one of Farnham’s Fearless Five who is regularly featured on the Farnham Herald’s pages. Same David unmasked as being the hand behind the Waverley Web.


IT WAS interesting to read Carole Allen’s account last week (Herald letters) of the difficulties of parking in Farnham.

Over four days since then, between 10.30am and 12.30pm, I have fitted in time for a morning constitutional around nine Farnham car parks, three of them supermarkets.

The six parks that affect the three streets referred to – the Borough, Downing Street and West Street – were, with minor variations between them and the other three, pretty much as she found them, with drivers circling around to find non-existent spaces.

The other three – St James, Riverside 2 and Riverside 3 – have more empty spaces, with Riverside 3 hardly used at all.

It’s too far away. It takes a quarter of an hour to reach the centre of the town on foot, and if you are frail, have a young family or have lots of stuff, park and stride hold no appeal.

Riverside 3 is the one years ago that Cllr Taylor Smith claimed didn’t exist and covered up with expensive turf before unveiling it fully fledged some months later.

It is not that Waverley hasn’t tried, it has just made bad choices, particularly with the outer three, and has no ideas on offer pre-Christmas to compensate for the loss of around 280 spaces in the Dogflud and old cinema sites because of the horrors of East Street.

Why not, for example, open the parts of the site not being worked at the moment, like the old tennis courts and, indeed, the cinema site?

We know by now that imagination, flair and thought for the public are not Waverley’s defining traits, but it would be more than a little welcome if it could at least try.

So as you trail, in increasing pre-Christmas frustration and despair, from one park to another, put the responsibility where it belongs – on our stumbling, fumbling, unimaginative council.

David Wylde,
St James Terrace, Farnham

WW Happy Christmas David and keep up the good work.

In the meantime commiserations to all those shoppers who will be picking up their Christmas presents/groceries and… a parking ticket!

If it makes you feel better – Waverley councillors can park for free in any of the borough’s car parks.

Screen Shot 2018-09-28 at 12.41.12.png17.05.18 – Haslemere Herald – Waverly accused over fines in ‘parking blitz’

The great private nursing home debate goes on and on – ad nauseam.



Here at the Waverley Web, we have been covering, from afar, a saga over there in the East of the borough over a replacement cottage hospital that has morphed into a Private Nursing Home. Villagers are becoming increasingly upset because they can’t get answers to their quite legitimate questions. What exactly is the money they raised being used for? We believe it was around £1m. Why did the parish council agree to its land being used for a private venture? Why did it permit access to residential development of 28 flats for health workers from anywhere? The rumble in the Cranleigh jungle is growing… watch this space!

Is the parish council, which supported the scheme just a week ago having second thoughts? Because tonight it has an item on its Agenda where it will consider, behind closed doors,  taking legal advice which it says is – in the public interest.

Isn’t it time Cranleigh people received answers to their questions. Isn’t it time Cranleigh Parish Council called a public meeting? 


Screen Shot 2018-12-19 at 11.45.28.png

Screen Shot 2018-12-19 at 11.45.56.png

I’ve got to say that I’m humbled by peoples interest in my background and where I come from, you only had to ask.!!!!!! The other question I got asked was why I am so interested in Cranleigh Village Hospital?
Well, I have lived in and around Cranleigh all my life, we were brought up in council housing and my parents were very hard workers, and doing so whilst bringing up 6 children. I can never remember my dad or mum ever being out of work.
Cranleigh was a close-knit community back then with a village hospital, loads of independent shops and everyone seemed to get along pretty well.
As the years went by and more and more houses were being built there was a great need for a village hospital, and our family often ended up there to have wounds dealt with or to see an out of hours doctor.
To cut a very long story short, my mum used to do voluntary work at the hospital with many others as she wanted to give something back to the community. My mum also helped run the Friday club for mentally handicapped adults which as a family used to help out with.
My mum sadly passed away earlier this year and it got me thinking about how people like my mum who cared for other people so much would have loved to have that same community spirit back again.
I am not doing this to get my name out there or to get thanks but simply to try and get our Village hospital back for those people that worked so hard to keep it going.
I hope that you now know why I feel so passionate about losing everything that Cranleigh used to offer.

Hodge the Bodge CBE off to enjoy more time with his golf clubs/family/garden…?


Former Tory Council Leader David Hodge has decided to follow the example set by former Prime Minister David Cameron to leave his Local Government post  –  and let his successors clear up the trail of mess he leaves behind?

The Conservative Councillor for Warlingham has now offered the county council his resignation forcing a By-Election in his Surrey constituency seat. Still, what’s a few more thousand pounds of our money going down the pan to find yet another Tory to replace him?

What is it about these Tory politicians that when they are no longer head honcho that they simply cannot bear to continue working for the voting fodder who elected them? Here at the Waverley Web, we suppose it’s not much fun dealing with the everyday concerns of Warlingham folk when you have spent seven years playing your very own game of  SODOPOLY with taxpayers’ money.  


Councillor Hodge was the subject of national controversy in 2017, shortly after being awarded his gong when he proposed a referendum to increase Surrey’s council tax by 15%, to deal with its burgeoning financial problems.

He claimed he had done a deal with the then Communities Secretary Sajid Javid over future funding. Perhaps, he just couldn’t stand the thought of continuing his county role when SJ becomes the next Prime Minister?


But of course – ‘Your Waverley’ will continue to ignore it – along with others.


Screen Shot 2018-12-18 at 10.07.58.png

Screen Shot 2018-12-18 at 10.14.35.png

The latest European Court ruling on protected habitats indicates that developers and planners should take a broader approach to assess the impacts of plans and projects on such zones, though experts are divided on the significance of the ruling.

Farnham Residents’ councillor Jerry Hyman has been banging on about this issue for as long as the Waverley Web has been in existence. But he is almost a lone voice at Waverley Towers – and is ridiculed for his concerns about the borough’s Special Protection Areas (SPA’s)  – and the effect development has on them.

Is it possible that the Farnham Residents’ councillor regularly ridiculed by Your Waverley has been proven right by – none other than the European Court of Justice?

New legal rulings on the European Union (EU) Habitats Directive keep on coming.

In April this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued a landmark ruling on habitat regulation assessments, which plans or projects in or near EU-designated special areas of conservation or special protection areas must undergo. Before the ruling, many developments which proposed mitigation measures to address their environmental impact had merely to pass an initial lighter-touch screening test rather than a full-blown habitats assessment. This process was insufficient, ruled the court, dictating that mitigation measures could only be considered as part of a more onerous ‘appropriate assessment’.
Three months later, the ECJ tightened the rules further for both developers and plan-makers. The court ruled that mitigation measures designed to compensate for a development’s impact – rather than reducing or avoiding harm – can only be considered sufficient in cases where there are “imperative reasons of overriding public interest” in allowing a scheme to go ahead. The two rulings “really upset the apple cart,” said Ben Kite, managing director at ecological consultancy EPR.

“Processes established for years in the UK were simply upended.”

Then came a third ruling. In November, the ECJ gave its verdict on environmental rules in relation to plans to extend a proposed ring road around the town of Kilkenny in south-east Ireland, which objectors were trying to block. The 1.5km-long road extension would cross the rivers Barrow and Nore that form an EU special area of conservation. This latest ruling appeared to broaden the scope of ‘appropriate assessments’ by dictating that the process must consider implications for habitats and species outside, as well as inside, a protected site – if the external habitats and species affect those within the site itself.

Expert opinion differ on the significance of the latest ruling. Stuart Andrews, head of planning at law firm Eversheds Sutherland, says: “The ruling provides some helpful guidance on the correct approach to assessment, but doesn’t change the law or have any interplay with the decisions from the ECJ earlier this year.”

However, Dr Stephanie Wray, chair at ecological consultancy Biocensus, said the latest ECJ verdict sets a legal precedent, with particular implications for projects affecting roaming species such as bats and birds – requiring developers to consider factors beyond the boundaries of protected habitats.

“This really is the first time that’s been recognised,” she said.

Wray says such an approach is established good practice for ecological consultants but adds that the ECJ ruling will prevent examples of bad practice from slipping through the net.

“There hasn’t [previously] been a legal basis that would make this a necessary approach,” she says. Likewise, Kite says: “This judgment will be very useful for people like Natural England and other competent authorities when they are trying to address examples of bad practice.”

Of course, translating court rulings into good planning practice will require practitioners to get to grips with what is becoming a steady stream of significant ECJ decisions. Nicky Linihan, a spokeswoman for the Planning Officers Society, which represents public sector planners, said:

“We would really encourage the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England to provide some advice as soon as possible on how the rulings should be interpreted from both a local planning authority and an applicant’s perspective.”

At the national level, changes to the National Planning Policy Framework in light of the April ECJ ruling are currently out for consultation. 

Will Councillor Hyman eventually be proved to be right?

Congratulations​ Beverley. Another act in the Awfold pantomime​?


I’m movin’ on up, movin’ on out
Movin’ on up, nothin’ can stop me
I’m movin’ on up, movin’ on out
Time to break free, nothin’ can stop me, yeah!

Crystal Tipps Weddell is movin’ on up, movin’ on out and nothing’s gonna stop her …


The Waverley Web understands that the Clerk to Awfold Parish Council whose starring role in its the recent money moving scandal, which rocked the village – on account of her dealings with the  filthy lucre for the worried-well-to-do of the Parish (all 0.07% of them who opposed development of Dunsfold Aerodrome.) – can’t wait to wash her hands and shake Alfold’s dust off her boots – can she?

She’s moving up in the world. All the way to Woking!
Apparently, no one has had the heart to tell her that the Victoria Theatre is putting on Cinderella this year, not Aladdin!!!
According to our source, so pleased are the Tory Tossers with her money-moving-manoeuvres they’re promoting her to their local HQ, where she will be well placed to ably assist one Sallie Barker who has been charged with establishing a Fundraising Committee!
Party Apparatchiks are, apparently, salivating at the prospect of Widow Twanky, as she is known locally,  bringing her finely honed skills to bear in lining their coffers, after hearing of her  exploits in banking a whopping £256,000 in a mere three months whilst assisting POW & the Parishes in their concerted efforts to derail development at the aerodrome. 
The big question as far as Awfold residents are concerned: is Crystal Tipps joining Nik Pigeon in jumping ship from Alfold Parish Council which – rumour has it – has become too hot to hold them – or is she simply adding to her ever-growing portfolio of part-time clerking jobs?

Oh dear! There’s no room at the Inn.


Our inbox is groaning under the weight of presents? Sadly no… but from residents over there in the East about- the don’t mention the Hospital word. But about the new Private Nursing Home.

One man, who however hard he tries simply cannot extract an answer to any of his questions from the official source – but only receives responses from“my son is not the official spokesman for the CVNT” Martin Bamford, who as censor of The Cranleigh Community Board. sounds a little more irritated every day.

So we have answered your questions for you on the links below. And in response to your request to become a Trustee. – From a little research, we have discovered, that you really wouldn’t want to join the list of Ex Trustees – who left because of the shenanigans that have gone on inside the so-called Charity and its use of public funds.


Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 09.44.43.png



Don’t mention the word. ‘HOSPITAL!’

A little help from a friend – How to complete Surrey’s Consultation questionnaire.



SURREY County Council has recently launched an online public consultation about transforming libraries and cultural services.

It would appear, however, they have ignored the Crystal Mark standard and instead have chosen ambiguity and repetition as their method of communication.

I (Noel Hogan of Castle Hill, Farnham) have therefore attempted to decipher their questions and options and hope the below Plain English rewording is of assistance to anyone considering completing the consultation:

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following principle: Libraries and cultural services provide and enable opportunities for everyone to learn, access information, acquire new skills, improve literacy and be involved in their communities.
[] Strongly agree
[] Agree
[] Neither agree nor disagree
[] Disagree
[] Strongly disagree
[] No opinion
Rewording: Libraries are a good thing?

What impact would this principle have on you?
[] Highly positive
[] Positive
[] No impact
[] Negative
[] Highly negative
[] Not sure
Rewording: Match the number of your answer above with the number here. If you get this bit wrong, it will cancel out the answer you gave above.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the principle that, given restricted funding, libraries and other cultural resources should be targeted to the wellbeing and strengthening of communities, particularly the most vulnerable, to enable them to be resilient.
[] Strongly agree
[] Agree
[] Neither agree nor disagree
[] Disagree
[] Strongly disagree
[] No opinion
Rewording: We are skint, so can we take it out on those who need our services the most or not?

What impact would this principle have on you?
[] Highly positive
[] Positive
[] No impact
[] Negative
[] Highly negative
[] Not sure
Rewording: Match the number of your answer above with the number here. If you get this bit wrong, it will cancel out the answer you gave above.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following principle: Libraries and cultural services are most effective and efficient when they work in partnership with the public, voluntary and community and private sectors, including through the creation of shared spaces.
[] Strongly agree
[] Agree
[] Neither agree nor disagree
[] Disagree
[] Strongly disagree
[] No opinion
Rewording: Can you run these things for us, using volunteers and part of your house or office, even though you will still be paying for them with increasing council taxes every year?

What impact would this principle have on you?
[] Highly positive
[] Positive
[] No impact
[] Negative
[] Highly negative
[] Not sure
Rewording: Match the number etc. This is not a trick question, honest guv.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following principle: New technologies, including digital, enable libraries and cultural services to reach new audiences, and existing audiences in new ways, and offer 24/7 access.
[] Strongly agree
[] Agree
[] Neither agree nor disagree
[] Disagree
[] Strongly disagree
[] No opinion
Rewording: Google it, reading is for dinosaurs.

What impact would this principle have on you?
[] Positive
[] No impact
[] Negative
[] Highly negative
[] Not sure

Rewording: Match the number etc. Honestly, we are just making sure you know your own mind, why would we trick you?

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following principle: Volunteers are crucial community advocates and assets in libraries and cultural services, who also gain valuable skills and relationships through the work they do.
[] Strongly agree
[] Agree
[] Neither agree nor disagree
[] Disagree
[] Strongly disagree
[] No opinion
Rewording: We like to make volunteers feel warm and fuzzy, as it saves us a fortune. Do you like them too? Of course, you do, they’re lovely.

What impact would this principle have on you?
[] Highly positive
[] Positive
[] No impact
[] Negative
[] Highly negative
[] Not sure
Rewording: Match the……you get the gist (but it is definitely not a trap)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the county council extending the use of volunteers to help in delivering and collecting books to our most vulnerable residents who wish to access library services?
[] Strongly agree
[] Agree
[] Neither agree nor disagree
[] Disagree
[] Strongly disagree
[] No opinion
Rewording: We’re flogging this volunteers’ question to death, aren’t we? And it isn’t because it saves us a fortune. Do you like them too, of course, you do, they’re lovely

What impact would this have on you?
[] Highly positive
[] Positive
[] No impact
[] Negative
[] Highly negative
[] Not sure
Rewording: see above (still not a trick, though, honest)

Do you have any specific ideas about how we could achieve these principles through libraries and cultural services, both Surrey-wide and locally in your area?

Rewording: This bit is to make you feel involved and it gives us all a laugh. We have a top ten list of the funniest in the office.

WW adds its grateful thanks to many others here in Farnham:  to Noel Hogan
Castle Hill, Farnham 

One little ten-year-old summed it all up really:

“Please Santa – don’t let them take our Library away – if you do, where will I get all my books – they don’t have them at school, and Mummy and Daddy can’t buy them all!”image0000001.gif

If only we could all believe in Father Christmas?

Are you aware of the proposed Surrey cuts? The weight of public opinion should count?


Have you been to Surrey County Council’s drop-in consultations to find out exactly what its proposed cuts will mean for the future of our essential services?

Councillors Paul Follows and his county council colleague Councillor Penny Rivers were there – and are fuming.

Where were all the Tory Tossers? – Out ordering the turkey? Writing their Christmas Cards or wrapping presents? Watching the debacle that was unfolding at Westminster? Because they certainly weren’t to be seen at an event staged by the  County Council to explain how they intend to save shedloads of money by closing our recycling centres in Farnham & Cranleigh, close children’s centres, libraries etc…!

Of course, the elephant at Waverley Towers is the fact there was no mention of the £50 odd million (SCC) has invested in Brightwell’s Yard. The county council and borough’s widely criticised partnership to build  28 new retail and restaurant units + homes in Farnham’s East Street.  Did they mention their years of financial mismanagement of one of the wealthiest counties in the country?

Listen to what Councillor Paul Follows has to say.  A  councillor who has been in post for less than a year, learning on the job, listens to the public and becomes more disillusioned every day that goes by.

Thank you on behalf of the people of Waverley Councillor Follows for telling us how angry and concerned you are – and we will ensure we make both ours, and your views, known.

Here at the Waverkey Web he’s a  man after our own hearts.  But, you know what?  In next Mays elections the Tories will do their damndest to kick him out?





Cranleigh townsfolk have awarded NIL POINT to their so-called leaders for lending their support to a ginormous Nursing Home on land the Parish once owned!

But 10/10 goes to parish councillors ANGELA RICHARDSON and JAMES BETTS (Cranleigh’s very own Angela Merkel and All-Betts-Are-Off) for speaking out vociferously against a scheme to build a £30-40 million private nursing home and then … wait for it … wait for it … drum roll: ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE!

What a cop out!

SHAME ON THEM! Weren’t they elected to do their best for the residents and businesses of the Cranleigh Parish? Or perhaps they weren’t actually elected?  However, – like the rest of the Tory Tossers at this particular point in time – the Cranleigh and Ewhurst duo are only interested in doing what’s best for themselves.

They’re sitting on the fence because they want the local voting fodder to support their bid to represent them when they stand as Conservative candidates for the hotly-contested Waverley Borough Council seats in May’s elections. But, on this performance, they’ve as much chance of that happening as turkeys voting for Christmas!

For those who haven’t been following the Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the Hospital-word!) debacle over there in the East of the borough, it’s the one where local residents, schools, businesses and other organisations worked their socks off fundraising for a new village hospital only to discover that the millions they raised weren’t going towards providing the promised VILLAGE HOSPITAL/Day Hospital but had been diverted to fund a PRIVATELY OWNED NURSING HOME with a mere 20 out 80 beds being made available for local and not so local people!

In other words, the residents of Cranleigh and the surrounding villages did all the heavy-lifting in terms of fundraising and then the Trustees of the – in name only – Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust, did the dirty on them by selling out to HC-One, a multi-million pound PRIVATE CARE HOME FACILITY!


And it that wasn’t bad enough, it’s now been revealed that Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the H-word!) Trust duped the Parish Council into parting with parish-owned land for a measly £1! Yep, that’s right, a valuable site that belonged to the residents of Cranleigh was sold for a mere £1 plus a land swap!!!

Almost 20 years ago – Parish Councillors were led to believe it was a good deal, in the public interest, because in return, they were told the land would become the home of a new all-singing-all-dancing Cranleigh Village Hospital + a Day Hospital!

The land swap in question is surrounded by a ransom strip and included planning conditions stipulating that essential road improvement and traffic calming measures must be employed.  These measures were considered absolutely essential because Knowle Lane – like it says on the can – is a narrow country lane with no footpaths and a business called Kerbside operates a hop, skip and a car away from the junction onto Cranleigh High Street, changing tyres at the kerbside. Something that frequently causes utter chaos at busy times of the day!

As is so often the case – and, no doubt many were counting on – Waverley’s planning numpties didn’t bother to enforce any of the above mentioned essential planning conditions and now the residents and businesses of Cranleigh have the worst of all possible worlds:

However, in his infinite wisdom, Chairman of the Parish Council, the late unlamented Brian Ellis, took it upon himself with help from Richard Cole and a CVHTrustee to grant access over Parish owned land to Snoxhall fields to provide a very VALUABLE-TO-DEVELOPER access to 28 rabbit hutches for NHS workers! For – yes you guessed ZILCH!

Q: Why

Does a private nursing home need to provide homes for NHS workers?  When right next door the Berkeley Bunnies are building 425-homes which includes a percentage of affordable homes just a hop, skip and a jump away from the private nursing home?

 Why can’t 28 of the Berkeley Bunnies’ affordable hutches be earmarked for NHS workers?


• No new Village Hospital
• A privately owned nursing home in its place on a site that was acquired from the village for the princely sum of £1! And and a Right of Way for zilch.
• No essential road improvements
• 425 houses accessing onto the very narrow and pavement-less Knowle Lane
• 28 more homes adjacent to and associated with the privately owned nursing home

You couldn’t make it up! Seriously you couldn’t!

Meanwhile, the Trustees of Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the H-word!) Trust is spinning a web of ever-increasing bunkum to Cranleigh’s planning committee about all the so-called benefits to so-called “local” people” about HC-One’s amazing new 60-bed private hotel-in-all-but-name!

To add insult to injury, not to mention rubbing salt into the wound (no pun intended), they’ve omitted to mention the cherry on the icing on HC-One’s cake: their multi-millionaire owner has just sold out to Australian Pension giant AMP!

AMP swooped in and snapped up the Care Management Group, a chain of 90 care homes with 2,000 patients, from turnaround specialist Court Cavendish which also owns – you guessed it! – HC-ONE, for a stonking £200 MILLION!

Owner of HC-ONE, multi-millionaire, Mr Chai Patel says investing in the care home sector can still be a winner, despite social care providers continuing to suffer from uncertainty over funding following a decade of austerity.

Screen Shot 2018-10-08 at 20.01.27

Swapping your tea for Moet Mr Patel?

“You can have an investment in this sector and continue to do well both for residents and colleagues as well as investors.”

Well, of course you can, Mr Patel, when you have land that was sold for £1 handed to you on a plate – complete with a garnish of rabbit-hutches, otherwise known as residential development – by the townsfolk of Cranleigh, and then you sell it on – without even breaking a sweat, let alone ground! – to another provider for a stonking great profit!

So, Cranleigh voting fodder, remember that it was the abstentions by ANGELA RICHARDSON AND JAMES BETTS – two politically ambitious Cranleigh councillors – who allowed planning committee stand-in chairman Richard Cole to use his casting vote to permit Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the H-word) Trust to use money raised under false pretences by the people of the parish to wave through a privately owned nursing home by a wealthy Australian Pensions giant!

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 21.11.11.png

Angela((I want to go to WestminsterRichardson)


Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 21.11.20.png

James Betts.

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 21.15.13.png

Richard Cole. 

When you go to the ballot box in May you need to remember that it was ANGELA  and MICHAEL who didn’t put their votes where their mouths were. Which begs the  BIG questions about whether or not they can be trusted to do the right thing by Cranleigh residents or, as they demonstrated last night, will they only ever think about doing the right thing for themselves and their political ambitions?

In these difficult times, Cranleigh needs true statesmen-like leaders, not these politically-minded pygmies!

Will a move from County Towers help deal​ with Waverley’s rubbish?



Is County Towers transferring its recycling problems onto Waverley Towers?

The new leader of Surrey County Council has announced plans to leave County Hall in Kingston-Upon-Thames.

Perhaps Tim Oliver could use the money he is saving to keep our recycling facilities going in Farnham?

 When Waverley Council recently considered the county council’s proposed closure of two recycling centres – in Farnham and  Cranleigh, they argued they could get stuck with the county’s problems. Because residents already faced with shorter opening hours have started dumping their stuff into Waverley’s “Bring Bins,” in the boroughs car parks! Resulting in shifting the cash-strapped county’s problems onto cash-strapped Waverley!

Tim Oliver, a Conservative councillor for Weybridge, was elected recently to lead the county council, taking over from David Hodge who stepped down from the role after seven years.

During his acceptance speech, Mr Oliver said:For too long the emotional connection to a community has been taken for granted. He was referring to Kingston-Upon-Thames which is an outer London borough.

“For 50 years we have not been close enough to the residents we serve, and we all represent. I have therefore asked the officers to start the detailed planning for the relocation of the people in this building back into the county of Surrey.”

He hopes the authority will leave the Kingston HQ by 2020.

 WW predicts this will produce a shedload of money for the authority when the site is sold for housing? So why not use some of that money to properly fund Waverley’s existing recycling centres? Its children’s centres and more?

If Farnham loses its recycling centre, and the land is sold for housing, where will Biffa, Waverley’s newly appointed contractor, go? Neighbouring Authorities including – Hampshire and West Sussex are already putting measures in place to stop Surrey residents crossing the borders. Number-plate recognition has been installed in Hampshire and WSCC is asking for people to produce a driving licence.

The Farnham Herald’s ‘Don’t Dump the Dump’ campaign now has cross-party support – have you signed the petition?

Natalie Bramhall, the county councillor for Redhill West and Meadvale, has been appointed a deputy cabinet member tasked with finding the council a new home. 

Perhaps, if the decision is made to close Farnham’s Recycling centre – it could provide a new home for County Towers?


“Has Milford Golf Course sold developers a Bogey?”


Now all hell’s breaking out in Milford – as claims over a covenant gather pace.

 A battle royal between residents, Waverley Planners and developers – over a scheme to build 200 homes on Milford Golf Course is about to tee off.

Is yet another development accessing off a narrow country road about to happen? But, then there’s a lot of that about – ask the people of Cranleigh the eastern villages of Alfold, and Ewhurst? Because they are currently playing dodgems with HGV’s and increased traffic,  just as they are in Milford. 

. Quite startling allegations that the developers Crown Golf and then Stretton Milford Ltd lied to Waverley to remove the Golf Club from the Green Belt in 2016. They strenuously argued the site was ‘deliverable’ when clearly there was a covenant on it. And then subsequently took out insurance against not removing the covenant!

Neighbours, Mr & Mrs House have clearly paid for a lorry load of consultants to draw together this huge list of objections. Quite an impressive document, you can download here.

 Mr & Mrs House’s consultants have highlighted the effect of the floodplain on the developers’ mitigation SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) area.  As usual, Natural England is obviously quite happy to see dog walkers up to their necks in floodwater from the River Ock as they negotiate the SANG? – That’s the area carved out of the site to mitigate for building near the rare Wealden Heaths. That space is also split into two by the busy Station Road – access to Milford Station, the constantly expanding Tuesley Fruit Farm – let alone a shedload of a new housing at Milford Hospital. So public safety goes by the board… yet again! WW asks? Is Natural England actually reviewing anything properly?

When are the Planners going to take into account the quality of life of its residents? When will Surrey County Council highway engineers start doing their job?

Here are just a few of the local objections.

  • the development will lead to serious congestion on Station Lane/Church Lane and Church Lane/A3100 Portsmouth Road and will pose a danger to pedestrians and cyclists;
  • the development will be overcrowded because the land available for building is severely constrained by flood risk and the need for SANG;
  • the Site, the River Ock, and Station Lane are all liable to flooding. Stretton Milford Limited has not adequately evaluated the run-off and flood risk resulting in the Surrey County Council (the Lead FloodAuthority) recommending refusal of the application;
  • the Site cannot provide SANG that complies with relevant guidance;
  • the development will invade natural countryside and unnecessarily break the natural boundary to the village of Milford that the River Ock has always provided;
  • the development does not comply with the conditions set out in LPP1 when the Site was allocated as a strategic site suitable for large-scale development;
  • the proposed development will overlook and overshadow our own property;
  • since there is a legal right to prevent this development, which we intend to enforce, it is a costly and flawed strategy for Waverley Borough Council to depend on this development on the Site to fulfil a material part of its unmet housing need;
  • it is premature for Waverley Borough Council to grant planning permission for a large-scale development on the Site since it has not completed the preparation of Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) which will provide a proper opportunity (if carried out objectively) to reflect on the availability of other more suitable and better-supported sites for large-scale development; and
  • the scale of the requirement for housing in Waverley Borough Council is in a state of flux and it would be inappropriate to permit large-scale development now on an unsuitable site when doing so will breach the historic natural boundary of the village at the River Ock and permanently destroy former Green Belt land.

This isn’t the River Ock it’s a road.

By the way – that’s the road – not the river!

Breath in! Don’t worry the pedestrians will jump into the hedges – or get killed?



Just when you thought the Cranleigh Village (Don’t mention the H-word) Trust debacle couldn’t get any worse, enter stage left Batty Bamford. Again!!

Batty – has latent ambitions, we’re told, to step into the shoes of the late, unlamented Life of Brian, former Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council.

Bully-Boy-Brian didn’t believe in democracy and whilst, give him his due, he chaired parish council meetings, all the important decisions were made behind closed doors, with a chosen few, including wife of Brian. They were duped into accepting a land swap for a football field with a Ransome strip surrounding it? Embarked upon some extremely dubious shenanigans to provide an access along the Snoxhall Fields access road – and supported use of former parish land to allow A2Dominion to build residential flats there. But even they didn’t know that an A2D director was a CVHT Trustee? From the information spewing into us from a host of people, including former councillors, we could go on, and on…

But then we will leave it to (Don’t mention the H word) who are busy running ragged trying to convince everyone in and around Cranleigh New Town there really is something in it for them. There are two meetings tonight! One at the Civic Society another at Snox Hall where the parish council consider the scheme – on land it once owned and swapped for a replacement HOSPITAL.


Apparently, according to the Mutter on the street new bully-on-the-block Bamford is incandescent with the Waverley Web because we have … wait for it, …wait for it … Drum roll because It’s a biggy:

We have dared to TELL THE TRUTH!!!

Because if you don’t – someone will tell it for you.


Yes, there you have it, folks, the Waverley Web has dared to reveal the little secret that the Cranleigh Village (Don’t mention the H-word) Trust is desperate to conceal: that it isn’t what it says on the can!

Instead, the promised new village hospital that Cranleigh residents, businesses, schools and other organisations fund-raised so hard for is DEAD and, in its place, the Trustees have cobbled together a deal with a multibillionaire  owned private sector company HC-ONE to build a private nursing home, with none of the usual services associated with a cottage hospital and a mere 20 out of a total of 80 beds provided free for residents of the borough rather than the Cranleigh residents who did all the heavy-lifting in relation to the fundraising.

According to embattled and berated Cranleigh residents and businesses – who wish to remain nameless for fear of reprisals – new BOTB Bamford considers himself to be the public face of Cranleigh. Never mind the views of the democratically elected Parish Council, in his capacity as Vice-Chair of Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce, new BOTB   wants to speak for all of Cranleigh – or at least all those that he thinks matters! 

What is it about some people that the minute they assume a semi-public role – even in a tiny pond like Cranleigh – that makes them think they morph overnight into sagacious men of business and statesmen of the village? And why do they think they can completely disregard and sweep into the gutter the aspirations and views of the many thousands of residents who believed in and fund-raised for a new village hospital – not only in name but in deed?

The answer, in part, is that power corrupts – even in tiny doses, which is all new BOTB  currently has. But can you imagine what a jumped-up popinjay he’s set to become if ever he reaches the giddy heights of Chairman of the Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce? May God preserve us if the Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce doesn’t!

Sadly,  he has convinced himself that he’s the only person with the wit and ingenuity to decide when a village hospital is a village hospital – or not as is the case here – and if anyone disagrees with him woe betide them – or so we’re told – more of which below.

We at the Waverley Web are shaking in our bunker because, we’re told, despite a 14.4% rise in crime in Surrey for the period 2017/18, with an astonishing 72,800 incidents reported during the period, Peanut wants the police to investigate us!

Yep, folks, you did read that right. According to our Cranleigh followers, BB is running around Cranleigh streets telling anyone who will listen that he wants the police to waste their very limited and valuable resources investigating and exposing the contributors to the Waverley Web, instead of concentrating on the more pressing issues of an 8.4% rise in burglaries in the county, incidents of domestic violence, rape and vehicle-related crimes.

Our crime? Apparently, we’re guilty of upsetting him and his village-wide view. Now, of course, we understand that the police are required to protect and support minorities, but, seriously, does he  really think being one of the few people in Cranleigh to support the debacle that the Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the H-word) Trust has become is really what being a member of a minority group is all about?!

Whilst BB ponders that complex problem, we await the dawn raid and have a working title of Truncheons at Dawn for the ensuing article 


Bamford rides again?


Our followers over there in the New Town are filling our inboxes with stuff about crime, vandalism, flooding, overdevelopment on its countryside, HGV’s thundering through their High Street and more… including, loss of recycling… In fact, we could write a book, not a blog!

 We here at the Waverley Web are being constantly bombarded with all things Cranleigh and the Eastern villages – and we wonder why?

 Over here in Farnham we are, about to lose our recycling facilities too – and our post office! Yours may be next?

Now another Charity Shop is moving into Cranleigh – this time its the Cats Protection League and according to our followers over there, it has had a nice new shiny newly-built shop tailor-made for them! 

The Deputy – no doubt soon to be Chairman, of the Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce, is asking the townsfolk what they think about the newcomer. Well, it’s been raining cats and dogs for weeks, but perhaps he doesn’t like cats? Perhaps the locals are becaming too vocal, because by the time the WW logged on the post had been removed by The Controller.

Cats Protection League - is the latest retailer to join Cranleigh Street.

Martin Bamford
Admin · Yesterday at 10:35
Brand new shop unit built and we get…another charity shop. Thoughts?

Beckie Weeks Someone asked what the people of Cranleigh would like to see in the village rather than another charity shop. Although I agree Cranleigh is a village which compliments shops such as Manns and Cromwell’s there are people in the village who sometimes can’t afford to shop there regularly. Maybe giving the option of a small version of pound land, savers, Wilkinsons perhaps would be good to extend the shopping range to all of Cranleigh and keeping people shopping in the village rather than travelling to nearby towns…and what they save in bus fare could then be spent on a cuppa at Cromwell or treat in Manns!!! Cranleigh is now diversifying in the range of people living here so maybe the shops could reflect that??? 😊

Peter Stanford Beckie Weeks I agree, affordability is the key both for the shop owners and the customers, but how to attract the shops is a big question.
I would add to your list Aldi, shopping that is affordable but still retains quality.
The people of Burpham didn’…

Beckie Weeks Peter Stanford also would be good but would they put it in Cranleigh with 3 supermarkets already!!! It would be awesome though!!! But yes if the shops were there to please all sorts of customers we could retain village life. People have said maybe it’s rent of shop units being so maybe bring the rent down per month but write a longer lease in the contract so the shops pay less but are here to stay for longer periods of time????

Hannah Nicholson Martin Bamford is this really necessary on this page when you actually posted about this already?

Hannah Nicholson Grow up eh, you are like a child behaving like the class clown to attention seek and thinking you’re funny. It’s pathetic. Anyone looking at this ‘community board’ and thinking of moving here for a nice community would drive the other way.

Presumably written by BB?

You know what! There are some residents who wanted more homes to provide more footfall for the shops. And, do you know which towns are benefitting from the townsfolk of Cranleigh?  Godalming and Horsham! So much so, that its High Street is thriving – and a new Lidl is about to be built near its station. So perhaps you have to be careful what you wish for?

What is going wrong with our Ambulance Services?


Screen Shot 2018-12-01 at 12.36.26.png

Screen Shot 2018-12-01 at 12.36.36.png

Our ambulance service has been placed into special measures by the health inspectorate after receiving the lowest-possible rating of ‘inadequate.’

The CQC inspected SSG UK Specialist Ambulance Service South – which provides emergency and urgent care and patient transport in the south-east. these are commissioned by local NHS trusts. The inspection took place after  – in response to concerns raised over its medicines, staffing, and overall management.

The service was rated ‘inadequate’ in all aspects – including safety, effectiveness, and being well-led – apart from responsiveness and quality of care, the former rated as ‘requires improvement’ while the latter did not have sufficient evidence to provide a rating.

The health inspectorate identified a number of issues. These included, the unsafe management of medicines; incidents in which patients health or well-being were not properly reported; and national practice guidelines were not followed when transferring mental health patients, where risk assessments were not carried out.

 No evidence was shown that paramedics and technicians had completed the appropriate training and competency to administer medicines safely. Neither had all staff completed the relevant training to competently fulfil their role.

There were also issues with the service’s recruitment process as records and check of staff fitness were either unavailable or incomplete.

CQC deputy chief inspector of hospitals, Dr Nigel Acheson, said: “We are all well aware that our ambulance services are under a tremendous amount of pressure and scrutiny. However, when we inspected the SSG UK Specialist Ambulance Service South recently, we were extremely concerned at the disconnect we identified between the senior team and the staff working on the frontline. We saw no sign of a clear vision and strategy and a lack of response to the concerns we had previously raised.

“The vision for the trust was not clearly articulated by the senior team and staff. The local managers provided us with different visions for the future but not how these plans would come into action, which did not assure us that the teams were working cohesively.”

The southeast ambulance service will be inspected again in six months’ time.

Chocs away for the Wings Museum – unless it joins Dunsfold Park’s tribute to the past?


An application to build Dunsfold Airfield Mark 2 – on land adjacent to Dunsfold Airfield Mark 1 – was flatly REFUSED – by Waverley Planners – who deemed it too big, in fact, claiming it was better suited to either Heathrow or Gatwick!

It beggars belief why Waverley’s head honcho led her planning numpties into recommending approval of a scheme to build an aviation museum councillors described as “bizarre;” “massive;” “huge;” “enormous” hangars more fitting for Heathrow or Gatwick.

Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 20.04.22.png
Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 19.58.47.png

The land adjacent to Dunsfold Park has been purchased by the West-Sussex based Wing Museum Trust from a local landowner, who no doubt, wanted to put two fingers up to the Flying Scot because the laddie has permission to build a Museum and 1,800 new homes on the airfield site adjacent? That land is marked in blue on the map above.

One councillor after another – even an absent Alfold Borough councillor Kevin Deanus, slammed the plan to build on land east of Benbow Lane off Dunsfold Road. A rural road Alfold Parish Council Chairman Nick Pigeon described as – in a bad state of repair.
However, a Wings Spokesman said the Museum, attracting 28,000 visitors to view the planes in a proposed 10,000 sqm hangar would be good for the borough’s economy, -with classrooms and library for education, a shop, library; coach and car parks, and a dedicated section dealing with Dunsfold Aerodrome’s history would be a huge asset.

It was financially sound with money to forge ahead with the exciting scheme on land it owned and to include an adjacent nature reserve, where the remains of WW2 buildings still stand.
The scheme was “unique” and would be a successful asset to the area.
Objector Chris Britton – or (Little Britton as he is known locally) said the scheme raised some serious issues – as the applicant had no relationship with Dunsfold Park. What if this multi-million-pound Museum failed in this rural area on agricultural land, which, he claimed, had never been within the airfield boundary and if allowed it would set a dangerous precedent for other similar areas around the new settlement.
“This proposed hangar could accommodate 342 double-decker buses or even Concorde and is eight times bigger than the existing Wings Museum.”
Several councillors claimed the access would be far too close to an existing DP access, and why hadn’t SCC highways objected?

The WW asks  – is this outfit (SCC highways) any longer fit for purpose?

Why wasn’t it part of the Dunsfold Masterplan councillors asked? Why wasn’t the applicant talking to Dunsfold Park? Why? were officers recommending approval when the whole idea of the DP Masterplan was to plan – future development – and which included a new Aviation Museum?
“This is bizarre,” claimed Mary Foryszewski – “we could end up with two Museums.”
In a letter read out by Councillor John Gray, Kevin Deanus claimed the size of the building – was so large “it will make Gatwick and Heathrow jealous. And to claim it was part of the airfield, and within touching distance of proposed new homes was stretching credibility too far.”
Any access to any future Museum should be off the A281.
For once, Betty Boot rolled back from her usual stance of kicking councillors into submission? She actually became more accommodating – perhaps now she is retiring, she is beginning to feel some remorse for the mess she has helped get the East of the borough into?
Has anyone told BB about the Dunsfold Masterplan? That a Museum already exists and described by Bramley’s By-Pass Byham as – ramshackle, dilapidated buildings manned by a few volunteers – is to be replaced? It’s in the Masterplan ducky!

Calling out to the public gallery BBPB said to another Betty Sorry Betty (we know not who Betty is – but I shall be supporting this application.”
No doubt quite forgetting his usual concern for the heavy traffic which he would like to By-Pass Bramley? But then what’s another 28,000 visitors’ cars between friends?
Councillor Mike band described the scheme – as an “extraordinary place to consider putting an enormous Museum. “Wrong place, wrong size, without the right partners!”
Although some councillors suggested deferral, others wanted an outright rejection and it was REFUSED by 11 votes to By-Pass’s One.


Farnham’s Redgrave to bite the dust.


Tis the Season to be Jolly? Isn’t it?

Screen Shot 2018-12-04 at 17.33.32.png

Third time lucky ‘Your Waverley” seeks and it finds listed building consent to reduce Farnham’s last link with the Redgrave dynasty to a pile of rubble. And – what better time to do the dreaded deed  – during the Christmas Pantomime Season! 

This is a rallying call to the residents of the borough of Waverley. Never let it be said that we here at the WW are only concerned with all things Farnham.

But this plea goes out to everyone in Waverley who cares about their heritage. To-day Farnham – tomorrow Godalming – Haslemere – or over there in the Eastern villages. One day it could be you?

Nothing anyone now says or does will change the sad fact that Farnham is about to lose its treasured Redgrave Theatre. Sir Michael Redgrave- for many years, a teacher at a Waverley fee-paying school would surely have been heartbroken to watch the bulldozers trashing a theatre bearing his famous family name. But the deed is done and the Philistines at ‘Your Waverley’ would rather see a load more empty shops, restaurants, and “so-called affordable homes” on the Blightwells site. And – who knows it may prove to be a huge asset to the Farnham coffee-culture scene drawing in the Wombles of Wimbledon and the Wandsworth wanderers. Who are we to judge?

But here’s an open letter to those of us who treasured Farnham’s past and fear for its future. So, if you care about our theatre – at least let the decision-makers know how you regret its demise and make some reparation for ensuring its loss. Because as sure as hell – one day someone will ask WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?

Dear Farnham Theatre Association Colleagues,

The Redgrave Theatre is due to be knocked down over a number of days between December 10th and March 4th next year, having served as a beacon and a rallying call since it closed in 1998.

To a group of keen theatre supporters, it seems fitting that those who gained so much from it should have the chance to mark its passing publicly and appropriately.

By agreement with the Farnham Herald, a number of letters are planned from different groups each carrying multiple signatures.

The plan is to send these into the Herald, to be published over 2/3 weeks as soon as the Redgrave goes down. Life is too short to alter or amend the shared letter from FTA on individual request, so if you would prefer to send in your own personal response, that would be more than welcome, particularly if it follows the opening salvo. It would help to convey the sense of public outrage if correspondence continued for some weeks and the debate opened up. Chances of publication will be greater with group letters.

If you would like your name added to the FTA letter (see below), could you email your consent to Anne Cooper on The Herald accepts it is impracticable to collect so many signatures individually, so asks that each typed name it receives is accompanied by a contact email address to confirm authenticity; however these latter details will not be published.

Thank you 

Anne Cooper

(Letter to Farnham Herald from FTA Members and friends)

Dear Sir,

The demolition of the Redgrave Theatre causes immense distress to those who regarded Farnham’s two theatres as beacons of culture for over fifty years. However, the demolition will give some satisfaction to those who rate commerce to be more important than the arts. Paradoxically, Waverley has spent millions on pursuing a development scheme which promises little return, while the condemned theatre was built economically and sustainably for the long-term. Because the theatre was designed for low-cost maintenance, it was never praised for its external appearance, but rather for the work that went on inside that simple, functional auditorium.
Destroying part of Farnham’s heritage is a divisive act, particularly when uneconomic shops and restaurants are to replace the theatre which was once the cultural heart of the town. This destruction has, at the same time, damaged part of what made Farnham special: a cohesive spirit of community creativity. After the Second World War, the people of Farnham supported and encouraged the fledgeling Castle Theatre, to such an extent that the larger Redgrave Theatre was built with money raised largely by public subscription. This became a theatre renowned and respected nationally for the quality of its productions. At the same time, Farnham people had rescued and developed the derelict Malting buildings and this is now a flourishing Arts Centre. The town had created and supported both venues. However, when times grew hard, our local authority took the controversial decision to support only one and it was Farnham Maltings that was to survive. It was believed that theatre at the Maltings would replace The Redgrave, but this proved to be a naive and unrealistic expectation.

Our local authorities have a responsibility now to mend the cultural damage they have inflicted on the town. We respectfully ask Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council for reparation for the loss of The Redgrave Theatre. We ask for a commitment to demand contributions from developers towards providing a well-equipped replacement theatre/concert hall to serve future expanding populations. This should be a priority for the well-being, not only of Farnham but the whole community of Waverley and beyond.
Yours faithfully,

Anne Cooper, Farnham Theatre Association Chairman

Background: A conditional contract to create a major retail and residential district was awarded to developers Crest Nicholson and Sainsbury’s in 2003. It has now begun. The theatre building is attached to the grade II-listed Brightwell House. 

The plans come 20 years after the Redgrave Theatre was closed by Waverley Borough Council. It will be knocked down and the adjacent Brightwell House will be converted to form two restaurants.

 When the council approved an application for listed building consent to demolish the building it attracted  260 objections and five votes of support from neighbours and consultees.

Among the objectors was the Theatres Trust. It opposed on the grounds the plans do not offer a replacement cultural facility or a financial contribution to support an existing facility.


Mea Culpa -wrong spokesman?


We are reliably informed by a Cranleigh follower that Mother of Bamford has called for a correction on the Cranleigh Community Board claiming that her son is not the spokesman for the Cranleigh Village Nursing Home Trust. 

Grovel, grovel, and apologies to Mrs Bamford for inadvertently referring to her son as such. But we were reliably informed that he is considered to be the spokesman as he is all over the eastern villages like a rash of spots, speaking up for said Cranleigh’s new nursing home – never to be referred to as… a HOSPITAL.

We also understand he is stomping around Cranleigh New Town complaining about anyone that posts anything he doesn’t agree with on the Cranleigh Community Board.

So we are issuing a health warning to anyone over there in the Eastern villages remotely inclined to share our posts – please DON’T – without asking Mr or Mrs Bamford for permission first.




Don’t mention the word. ‘HOSPITAL!’

Don’t​ mention the word. ‘HOSPITAL!’


Particularly if you dare to share this post on The Cranleigh Community Board!

Because according to e-mails we have received from followers over there in the East – the Cranleigh Mafia is at work. ‘The Chef’ aka  Martin Bamford (he has so many fingers in so many pies) has removed this post shared by his members on the board he now owns and censors. No Gipsies and No Private Nursing Home speak?

Why we wonder? Is this a little too close to the truth?

We have also heard that the Cranleigh Parish Council will be considering The Giant Nursing Home scheme at its planning meeting next Monday.


The words – “Hospital” must not be used!!

This is the plan for a £30/40m Private Nursing Home together with residential accommodation being put forward by A2 Dominion Director “Mr Cranleahy”and HC-One  –  as a replacement for “dare we, dare we, say it? … Cranleigh Hospital. Dammit, now we have!


In a nutshell,  we’re told – on good authority.  The people of Cranleigh and the nearby, villages were asked to raid their piggy banks and dig deep into their pockets to replace  – Cranleigh Cottage Hospital axed by the health authority.  And… they did… raising millions.

But now, we’ve been inundated by complaints and questions from local people who ran fundraising events – local schools, pubs, clubs and individuals – you name it, they raised it.

Now that dream has turned sour and instead of living the dream local people find themselves living  – Nightmare on Knowle Lane.

The trouble began, we understand, when “big boy” developers, such as A2 Dominion and HC-One, got involved and the scheme morphed from a new local hospital with beds for local people into something so far removed from this original concept, even the founding trustees don’t recognise it!

Angry residents tell us their questions go unanswered by Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust (CVHT) – the original organisation set up to promote the concept of local beds for local people, free at the point of demand.

We at the Waverley Web are not entirely au fait with the scheme – which has been in the pipeline since before we were even a germ of an idea – but our Cranleigh followers have been on the case, trying to winkle out some answers and this is how they faired.

• It is an 80-bed care home – it is NOT a hospital!
• It will NOT have a minor injuries unit – X-Ray, MRI or outpatients. These services will be provided by the official Cranleigh Village Hospital, operated by its Cranleigh League of Friends. We have ascertained this organisation has no link whatsoever with the CVHT Charity. Neither does it attend its meetings or have any inclination to do so.
• There will be 20 beds for community care – managed under a joint budget operated by the Guildford & Waverley Commissioning Care Group( G&WCCG) and Surrey County Council Adult Social Care (SCC).
• These beds will replace some,  (20) but not all, of the 60 beds lost when Surrey County Council closed its Longfields Home some years ago – a site now earmarked for 25 homes! Clearly a win-win for SCC but not for the good folk of Cranleigh and the surrounding villages!
• The 20 community beds will be open to ANYONE  in the GWCCG area – which covers Guildford & Waverley, not just Cranleigh and the surrounding villages.
• We are told by health workers – who have contacted us in confidence – that it is to assist with Royal Surrey County Hospital’s bed-blocking, some of which is as a direct result of SCC’s decision to close its homes in the borough.

Now pay attention!  Here’s where it gets a bit complicated.

Residents have written to us because they simply cannot unearth the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from CVHT. What they want to know is:


Will fund-raisers and residents of Cranleigh and the surrounding villages get priority over out-of-area patients, if they require a bed?


Of the 80 beds – 60 are for a Private Patients only – the remaining 20 are named as ‘community beds.’

So, in a nutshell, as Monsieur Barnier is so fond of saying: the answer is ‘NON!’
But, to elaborate, if two patients needed one of the 20 available beds – one from Guildford and one from Cranleigh – then likely as not, depending on their condition – the “local” may get first dibs. However, beds will not be kept vacant “just in case”. “It just wouldn’t make economic sense.”

Also, nursing homes are now becoming an outdated service. In NHS jargon, its the future direction of travel for patients to remain in their own homes, assisted by staff and new technology. A bit like the model already being funded by The League of Friends. According to its records of funding for its ‘End of Life Care’ programme for years.

One official who dare not be named for fear of reprisals from the CVHT spokesman, Martin Bamford, told the WW:

“An outmoded scheme – a dinosaur – is being foisted on the town of Cranleigh. Two Monolithic buildings that will tower over Whisker Drive, all because the Charity clings like a limpet to the wreckage of a disappearing dream which has now morphed into a money spinner for developers”. The whistleblower claimed the parish council had been duped, as it was never its intention to support a private care-home provider on land once owned by the parish. Neither was it residents’ intention that the site be used for residential accommodation when hundreds of “affordables” are currently under construction in the town.”

“Some, purporting to be the saviours of Cranleigh, should hang their heads in shame. The winners here are: the health authority, SCC, and a billionaire health provider – AC-ONE Mr Chai Patel.

The losers? – local residents who were duped into parting with their cash. Many of whom would never be able to afford a private nursing home bed or take advantage of the social care community beds they’re money has funded!

To be continued ….

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 16.22.34.png

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 16.22.47.png

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 16.23.12.png

The Waverley Web is not entirely sure why the Charity is still using the image below which is a blatant disregard of the advice it has been given?

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 16.22.59.png

When is a hospital not a hospital? When it’s in “poor old Cranleigh? – whose residents appear to have been SHAFTED by a charity!

Long awaited plans for new healthcare facilities in Cranleigh to be submitted. WHEN exactly? Are there plans afoot to bring Cranleigh traffic to a standstill?



So Jodie Kidd thinks it’s a hoot to break into Dunsfold Aerodrome and race down the runway to demonstrate how daring-do and cool she is to her 37,000 followers on Instagram.

Really, Jodie – you must be kidding?

Do you actually think it’s clever – or for that matter sane – to abuse your knowledge of the Aerodrome to tell every petrol head in the country how they can sneak into an active aerodrome under the radar – no pun intended! – and tear down the runway, at the risk of colliding with a plane and causing a major incident in the process?! You might look like a bimbo but do you really want to reinforce that image by acting like one?

We know your life is a bit of a car crash – we’ve lost count of the failed relationships! – but that doesn’t mean you have to incite others to behave as recklessly as you.

You’re 40 years old and have been around the block a few times, not 14 – and just starting out! 

In the meantime, if the Dunsfold Developer has any sense, it will ban you from the Aerodrome before you do someone a serious injury with your childish antics!

Meanwhile, as you admitted, on camera, to breaking and entering perhaps Surrey Police might like to stage a high profile arrest and post that on THEIR Instagram account in order to deter other boy racers from trying to emulate you …



It’s a Bugs Life- and it could be on its way to Waverley?


 Asian Hornet Sighting In Guildford – could it be that the Waverley Web has struck!

While it is smaller than our native European hornet, it can make very large nests and it also stings, so the public should be very cautious and not disturb the nests but report it straight away.

Screen Shot 2018-11-07 at 16.07.08.png

by Hugh Coakley of the amazing Guildford Dragon.

As reported last year (Beekeeper’s Notes April ’17; Foreign Invaders from Europe), the fear of an invasion of the Asian hornet is one step closer with a sighting now in Slyfield, Guildford.

Beekeeper Mark Seabrook, who works in premises on the Slyfield Industrial Estate, was more than surprised to see a dead hornet on the floor and, on closer inspection, for it to be an Asian hornet.

Mark said: “It was not something that I expected to ever actually see in Guildford. I keep bees so I do look out for such things but to see it on my workshop floor was a shock.

“It is difficult to know where it came from, whether it is from a local nest or came in on a transporter from around the country or even in a parts container from abroad.”

Mark has reported the finding to the DEFRA Non Native Species secretariatand to the Guildford Beekeeper’s Association.

Marilynne Bainbridge, who chairs the Guildford branch of the National Beekeepers’ Association, said: “It is very worrying for bees and beekeepers. There have been quite a few sightings now with the closest being in the neighbouring county of Hampshire where four nests were destroyed very recently.

“Beekeepers and the public need to be on the alert for this destructive invader and to report it to immediately.”

The Pest Control News reported last year that there had been a confirmed sighting in North Devon.