‘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: https://www.change.org/p/andy-webb-open-cranleigh-hospital-minor-injury-clinic-and-day-hospital?recruiter=927243236&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=Search%3ESAP%3EUK%3ENonBrand-Tier%201%3ECreation%3EBMM&utm_content=fht-14142835-en-gb%3Av5

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 contact@waverleyweb.org

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 contact@waverleyweb.org

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 contact@waverleyweb.org



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, contact@waverleyweb.com 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?http://www.farnhamherald.com/article.cfm?id=131619&headline=Councillors%20join%20fight%20to%20keep%20tip%20open&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2018

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 high..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 anne.cooper@farnhamtheatre.org.uk 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 alertnonnative@ceh.ac.uk immediately.”

The Pest Control News reported last year that there had been a confirmed sighting in North Devon.




Oh Dear! What can the matter be? Guildford Tories off to a depository?


It launches a Gala for Government Minister but nobody wants to be there!

Screen Shot 2018-11-28 at 14.00.58.png

Apparently the Guildford Conservative Group – which includes the wealthy East Waverley – has cancelled its Gala dinner due to poor ticket sales! And it is moving its Guildford HQ to… WOKING … the town Tory controlled Guildford Planners have told to … shove its unmet housing need where monkeys put their nuts!

MP Anne Milton’s buddy in the Education Ministry – Secretary of State Damian Hinds has now been given the night off – because only 50 people bought tickets. No doubt local Tories pi**ed off with Brexit, and the fact that local schools are putting out begging bowls for pens and toilet rolls,  boycotted the £60 a-head event? Though we heard that all the local fee-paying schools are all doing nicely by flogging off their playing fields so they can afford such necessities. 

TT’s were not even encouraged to attend after being told that – “Mr Hinds was at the forefront of planning for our country’s future and the skills needed to compete in a post-Brexit world.” The Group says scrapping the event, boasting such a high profile guest speaker reflected badly on the organisation.

Oh well! It’s an ill wind that blows no good at least he gets an evening in by the fire with the wife and kids? Not forgetting – we here at the WW get a refund?


The Guildford Association needs such fundraising jolly’s to fill local coffers with £10,000 in time for what it describes as  the forthcoming “all-out election campaign?” Which one is that?!

bobsmithDon’t worry, Chairman Bob Hughes has a plan in the face of such austerity! The Guildford Tory Hub is schlepping ten miles over to Chobham Road, to Woking’s Tory HQ leaving its’ comfortable offices on the Loseley Park Estate, home of the Lord Lieutenant Major More-Molyneux to downsize to a new bunker. Chairman Bob Hughes who runs the Guildford Tories from his business email at charity Sight for Surrey, says “we will have some limited storage space and a printer.” Saying, it will only cost £5,000 a year plus it may rent a small storage unit for an extra few hundred pounds a year.”

Oh – who is the President of Bob’s charity Sight for Surrey? None other than Michael More-Molyneux, Lord Lieutenant of Surrey and Torie’s former landlord. No difficulties there then?
He stressed the Tory Group must use its resources wisely saying 
“we are in the 21st Century, we don’t need separate offices in Guildford.”

MY, MY HOW THE MIGHTY HAVE FALLEN? It’s austerity darling.





Your Waverley does the business on the borough’s heavy duty dog doo.


In line with other local authorities, ‘Your Waverley’ is taking draconian steps to stop the menace of dog doo which is spoiling our towns, villages and… the countryside.

Ever wondered why there is so much of it about these days? Then ponder no longer.



Is Mary our very own Gillian McKeith?
A Professor of Poo?
After all, You Are What You Eat -which applies to doggies-doo too!


This week Mary Foryszewski ‘YW’s’ dog doo guru  – and owner of the successful canine business – Pawfect Dog School gave her colleagues on the Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee – a little lesson in the subject of … dog poo.

She told colleagues, who however hard they tried, just couldn’t conceal their amusement,   there were now 9 million dogs in the UK – and why there was more poo.

Because dogs digestive systems are not designed to eat commercial dog food! If you put more rubbish in, more rubbish comes out. Many of you will remember years ago when you used to be able to be able to kick it {Poo} and it used to disintegrate because they ate bones, it doesn’t any more because they eat rubbish, she said!

Oh dear – it that that howling bark of commercial dog food manufacturers we hear enveloping  Waverley Towers? Thank goodness Councillor and Deputy Mayor Mary is covered by partial privilege? 

She continues, to say if you looked in her pocket it would hold two or three poo bags. To which her wisecracking neighbour, Councillor Peter Isherwood grinning from ear to ear, piped up – “empty I hope.”   Continuing undeterred,  she outlined why it was necessary for the council to introduce measures and subsequent fines across the borough. Measures that would affect many, due to the actions of a few dog owners who spoiled it for responsible owners. She also mentioned there had been more responses from the public on the subject of dog poo than there had been to the Local Plan.

That’s one thing we at the WW can say about the residents of Waverley they have their priorities in the right order – don’t they?

Officer Richard Homewood said policing the nuisance would be targetted to areas where most nuisances occurred, following complaints from the public, saying everyone recognised it was impossible to monitor everywhere. 

Several Councillors said they didn’t want to see – council employees – “lurking in the bushes.” However, Councillor Ross Welland saw absolutely no reason why dogs shouldn’t be let off the lead, in places like Blackheath in the Surrey Hills?

He is obviously unaware that the villagers there are now calling their once beautiful Area of Oustanding Natural Beauty – a dog sh*t toilet – for hundreds of dog walkers, some of whom are professional dog walkers taking out as many as eight dogs out at a time!

Councillor By-Pass Byham, who never By-Passes litter or dog poo on his Bramley patch – was just a bit concerned, that the council may not have “solid grounds” for imposing fines of up to £1,000 if owners’ didn’t have enough bags, hoping no-one would end up in jail? Officers assured him this was highly unlikely.

If the Executive, followed by Full Council agree, a blanket ban on dog fouling will be introduced across the borough in the next few weeks. 





If you don’t at first succeed try, try, try, and try, again and again?  Protect our Waverley and the Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England hope to persuade yet another Judge in the Court of Appeal to grant them leave to appeal. Then no doubt next time .. to the Supreme Court, the Pope and then Th Almighty?!

‘The battle to stop the development of Dunsfold Aerodrome is over,’ claims POW. But, the war with Waverley is not over yet.

Says POW:

‘there is nothing further we can do to prevent this controversial housing development after losing our legal challenge in the High Court.’

Capt’n Bob Lies, Chairman of the motley crew, claims,

‘It will be a huge disappointment to residents in the Eastern villages and in Guildford and Godalming that the approval for the development of Dunsfold Aerodrome will proceed.’

Typical POW. Typical Capt’n Bob. Utterly graceless in defeat!

Having poured over the Alfold Parish Council’s accounts, one curious regular reader did a spot of maths and sent us the following:

At the last census, Waverley Borough had a population of circa 123,000 and, as we all know, POW likes to boast ad nauseum that it ‘represents a very large and continually growing number of concerned local residents.’

Like hell it does! According to Crystal Tipps Weddells’ cash books. She banked

99 donations…

for POW’s campaign during 2017/18.  If you discount a single, measly donation by POW themselves and nine contributions from the Parishes – which came from their Precepts, not the voting public – that goes down to…

just 89 donations from members of the Waverley public.

Now, correct us if we are wrong, but surely that means…

… a mere 0.07% of Waverley residents dipped into their pockets to support POW and its aims? 

So much for POW claiming to represent ‘a very large and continually growing number of concerned local residents’ … laugh, We nearly peed our pants when our readers’ calculator spewed out …


So having wasted shed-loads of Taxpayer funds on behalf of 0.07% of Waverley residents it doesn’t even have the humility to offer the other 99.3% of local residents an apology for the many hundreds of thousands of pounds it has cost them, at a time when local services are being cut to the bone.

Adding  insult to injury, these publically funded wastrels have the cheek to announce in the same breath that it will join the CPRE in seeking leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal against the High Court’s decision that Waverley’s housing requirement, as set out in its Local Plan Part 1 for 590 houses per annum should be maintained, including 83 to cover Woking’s perceived unmet need!

Screen Shot 2018-07-14 at 00.58.39Brace yourselves! Here comes another major legal challenge that, if given the go-ahead will cost the Waverley taxpayer (yes, that’s you!) another shed load of money!

Our suggestion for POW: pack it in and concentrate on an argument you stand a chance of winning: the erection of a bloody great hanger on a green field outside the Aerodrome you so detest.

Or better still,  for all our sakes sod off and give this borough a break.

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 23.32.55.png

Why doesn’t Godalming Town Council have a planning committee?



GTC__CBA.jpgAll the major towns in ‘Your Waverley’ have a dedicated planning committee – including here in Farnham – Haslemere and Cranleigh. Even the small rural villages have either dedicated planning committees or public meetings where planning applications are considered – in public?

So why not in Godalming?

Milford Golf Course 23112018

Our interest in the planning function of Godalming Town Council was sparked off by the letter featured on the link above.

Funny, we thought, funny …   a major town, which hosts Waverley Towers and where there is a huge amount of development presently underway and even more proposed in the future? But no planning committee?

Even more puzzling? This paragraph from GTC’s new boy Councillor Paul Follows’ letter where he tells his fellow councillors of his, and residents concerns over the proposal to build on land at Milford Golf Course. A development that will have implications for Godalming’s overloaded road network and its infrastructure.

Cllr. Denis Leigh (Waverley Borough Council, Milford Ward)
Cllr. Bob Upton (Waverley Borough Council, Milford Ward)
Cllr. Gillian McCalden (Witley Parish Council, Chair)
Cllr. Tony Sollars (Witley Parish Council, Planning Committee Chair)


“My intent is to have this application reviewed by Godalming Town Council (GTC) to record a formal opinion before it goes to the Waverley Joint Planning Committee – and it is my hope that you might support that endeavour by writing to the Chairman of the Godalming Town Council Policy and Management Committee (Cllr Stefen Reynolds) to that end.

We, unfortunately, have no dedicated planning committee at GTC and as such, I am an opposition councillor asking the majority party chair for this to be added to the town council agenda – as you can imagine there is no guarantee that will happen and as such your support would be greatly appreciated!”

We have just learned that astoundingly the Tories abolished the Planning committee because quite simply they couldn’t be bothered. Their reason was that because so many of them are twin hatted – ie Waverley Councillors as well – then they would take the decisions and make the case at the meeting that mattered, rather than holding a trivial town council meeting, in front of the voting fodder, and duplicating their efforts.
They then said they would add significant planning items to other agendas, at the request of members. And an application in a neighbouring parish may not interest most of the council, hence Paul Follows lobbying for support with other Conservatives.

Surely, any self-respecting council -at the grassroots of local democracy – would want to hear its residents’ views on a planning application which affect their lives? Even a minor extension, can have a huge impact. So why don’t they review each and every planning application – allowing residents to have their say?

So Godalming Tories win the WW award for most “Can’t Be Arsed” Council this year.

The temperatures rising.




The shadow’s high on the darker side
Behind the doors, it’s a wilder ride
You can make a break, you can win or lose
That’s a chance you take when the heat’s on you
When the heat is on

Oh-wo-ho, oh-wo-ho
Caught up in the action I’ve been looking out for you
Oh-wo-ho, oh-wo-ho
(Tell me can you feel it)
(Tell me can you feel it)
(Tell me can you feel it)

The heat is on (yeah) the heat is on, the heat is on
It’s on the street, the heat is on (I can feel the fire)
The heat is on (flames are burning higher)
The heat is on (baby can’t you feel it)
Yeah, it’s on the street
The heat is on (I can feel it in the fire)
The heat is on (flames are burning higher)

The heat was certainly on – cooking on gas, according to our followers  – at the last meeting of Alfold Parish Council, when concerned residents rocked up with the intention of getting to the bottom of the Parish Council’s new role as cash collectors for Waverley’s worried well-to-do?

Unfortunately, Clerk Crystal Tipps-Weddell – had been less than diligent in distributing the requested information, giving only a chosen few,  no time to plough through pages of donations. Fine, if you’re an accountant or someone familiar with analysing spreadsheets at a glance, but not so fine if you’re Joe Public whose only experience of columns of figures is pouring over your monthly bank statement from Lloyds – or, in the case of Waverley’s worried well-to-do, Messrs Coutts & Co! 

Concerned of Alfold hadn’t got to grips with the facts and figures but, no doubt, that was the whole point of the ruse orchestrated by Cash Collectors in-Chief Crystal Tipps and Nic Pigeon. Treat em mean and keep em keen –  telling residents if they want answers – “go back and read all the past minutes.”  Presumably, they want to stay shtumm about the affluent’s effluent?

What was absolutely staggering was the fact that between 20 April and 15 September 2017,  Alfold PC ********d  on POW’s behalf a staggering £246,073.45. In a mere five months! So they were averaging a cleanup rate of £49,214.69 per month! No wonder Crystal Tipps claimed £26.14 in parking fees and £40.04 in postage, she must have been running from bank to post office on a daily basis at the height of her money moving exploits!

Equally interestingly, Alfold PC banked 99 donations in total during that period, which made the average donation £2,485. However, as you might imagine, that was far from the case! Most of the donations were for considerably more, with the most popular sums donated by individuals being £500, £2,500 and £5,000. One or two high rollers (or do we mean developers?!) stumped up £20,050 and £10,000 respectively and there were several dups at circa £7,500 a poop – oops! We meant to say pop!

POW themselves contributed a measly £3,000! Talk about all mouth and no trousers – or, bearing Stacey Strumpette in mind, all fur coat and no knickers!

The ‘Dirty Dozen’ Parish Councils that stumped up for the Public Inquiry into Dunsfold Park, decreased to Ocean’s Seven (or, in this case, Little Britton’s Seven!) during this period, contributing £39,100 between them, as follows:

Alfold                  £10,000

Busbridge PC      £5,000
Chiddingfold PC £5,000
Dunsfold PC        £5,000
Hambledon PC   £6,000
Loxwood PC        £3,100
Shalford PC         £5,000
Wonersh PC       £10,000

The moral of this tale: If Capt’n Bob Lies and Little Britton persist in their delusion that a Planning Judge doesn’t understand planning law and decide to pop along to the Court of Appeal TO-DAY and plead poverty – again! – we strongly recommend that the Dunsfold Developer, the Secretary of State and Waverley Borough Council point the Judge to their quite remarkable money-raising powers. If this bunch of Bozos can raise on average £49,214.69 per month, there’s no reason on earth why they shouldn’t pick up the tab for the fights they pick, instead of leaving it to US, the Waverley Tax Payer to run along behind them poop-a-scooping their dirty little dump it all on the taxpayer habits!

Talking of Stacey Strumpette, rumour has it the Dunsfold resident may have attended the Parish Council meeting? 

Apparently,  Stacey was pouring over a copy of Alfold Parish Council’s Cash Book, trying to identify which initials were who – we’re told Crystal Tipps had, by a sleight of hand, failed to make a note of the names of donors, referring to them instead – much to Stacey’s chagrin – only by their initials, if at all! Our Stacey enquired, hopefully, into one particular donation of £12,100.00 that had caught her eye and looked terribly deflated when she was told this was just a lazy and inept (our words, not Crystal Tipps’ we hasten to add!) bulk donation posting, so could have been from any Tom, Dick or Harriette – not to mention one of any number of desperate developers keen to stop Dunsfold Park in its tracks.

For those of you who are wondering how Alfold Parish Council spent the dosh, wonder no more, just to give you a little flavour:

£85,592.49 on Barton Willmore Planning Consultants
£6,000.00 on ‘professional fees’ for Victoria Hutton of 39 Essex Chambers
£10,102.89 on Motion Consultants Transport Consultancy Services
£10,828.65 on David Huskisson Associates Landscape Expert Witnesses
£64,070.00 legal representation by 39 Essex Chambers

Rumour has it Dunsfold’s Stacey is now considering a change of profession – or, failing that, a change of stomping ground! Goodbye Dunsfold, Hello Inns of Court. Anything Victoria can do, Stacey reckons she can do too – with a little practice … or is it practise!!!

Oh, and in answer to the member of the public who attended and was told by Little Britton “I am nothing whatsoever to do with POW!”

He was announced in his interview on BBC Surrey – as, yes, you guessed – the Deputy Chairman of POW. 



They’re off nice and early in Cranleigh? Campaigning for the 2019 local elections.


It’s girl power – where are Cranleigh’s blokes?

Or… perhaps not. As these Tory ladies are calling canvassing  by a new name it’s now called ‘surveying residents.’  And there were silly old us, thinking that surveying was the practice carried out by developers before they start covering the countryside in concrete?

Wannabe Waverley borough and Cranleigh parish councillors are stomping around the streets as they rev up in readiness for next May’s borough and parish elections. 

No point waiting for the starters’ gun is there? Get out their girls, start mixing with the voting fodder. By the  sounds of it all is going well according to the very ambitious – Ewhurst’s Angie of I’m a Cranleigh parish councillor, then a borough councillor – and I’m on my way up the greasy Tory pole to Westminster – because I bag loads of  dosh for them all over the Guildford and the East – Tory patch so I can become Annie’s replacement? But first – I have my eye on keeping the Tories in power at Waverley?

Don’t they have enough CRANLEIGH people over there to speak up for the New Town? Let us hope here in Farnham we can manage to stump up a few true locals?

We’ve heard over here there is a groundswell of Independent, Residents’ Associations and Liberal Democrat candidates out there seeking to snatch some of those seats in a bid to change the face of Waverley’s Tory dominance. Go girls go.

Screen Shot 2018-11-25 at 10.14.18.png

Cranleigh Parish Councillor Angela Richardson, Waverley Councillor and Parish Chairman Liz Townsend and Waverley’s Deputy Mayor Mary Foryszewski out pressing the flesh with Cranleigh’s voting fodder. 



The man the WW tipped to become Surrey County Council’s new Leader was first past the post.


Former Lawyer and Member for Weybridge Set To Be New County Council Leader

Will he? Won’t he? Try and snatch his badge back?

Tim Oliver, the Conservative county councillor for Weybridge, and Leader of Elmbridge, the wealthiest borough in the county, will be the new leader of Surrey County Council. , replacing David Hodge. 

He replaces Mr David Hodge who steps down on December 11 (2018) when Cllr Oliver’s appointment as council leader will get the go-ahead. 

Cllr Oliver said: “I am delighted to have been elected leader of the Conservative Group for Surrey County Council and I would like to thank my fellow Conservative county councillors for providing me with this honour.

“I pay tribute to the excellent work my predecessor David Hodge has done during his leadership. My focus now is on representing the group and working to serve the residents of Surrey to the best of my abilities.”

The four-horse race was between Waverley’s Western Villages David Harmer, the present deputy leader; John Furey (Addlestone); Elmbridge council leader Cllr Oliver; and Graham Ellwood (Guildford East).

The result was overwhelmingly in favour of Cllr Oliver, the cabinet member with responsibility for health and wellbeing. 

Graham Ellwood’s unsuccessful bid may have in part been due to his slightly poorer attendance record than other candidates.

 As mentioned in WW’s previous post-Cranleigh & Eastern Villages Councillor Povey was expected to throw his hat into the ring. However, he pulled out of the race after he realised he had little, or no, support.

The new leader ’s career was as a lawyer in his company, The Parabis Group, which it is believed once employed more than 1,900 people across the UK, went into administration in 2015, “owing almost £50 million to more than 2,500 unsecured creditors”, according to the Law Gazette.

The Lawyer reported in 2016 that Mr Oliver received £16.9 million for his stake in the Parabis business when it was acquired by private equity firm Duke Street before its collapse.

It also added that Mr Oliver said: “… a ‘considerable sum’ was reinvested back into Parabis to fund acquisitions, but he preferred not to shed more light on precisely what that sum might be”.

Says WW: Perhaps it was reinvested in some of these?


Blightwell’s gets yet another bashing – but this time it comes from ‘The Yard’s’ very own developer – Crest Nicholson​.



Do you think that now even Crest Nicholson is beginning to wish it had never heard of Farnham? And, that Wonersh resident and CN’s Chief Executive Patrick Bergin is hanging his head in shame at his company’s description of the Blightwells scheme!

What is happening to our towns and villages?


Screen Shot 2018-08-03 at 18.26.51.png

Crest Nicholson said recently it expected profits before tax for the year to 31 October to be in the range of £170m/£190m, below its estimate of £204m, which was already below the previous year’s result of £207m.

Its Chief Financial Officer is stepping down from the board leaving the business in the hands of Chairman Stephen Stone and CEO  and Waverley resident Patrick Bergin taking the lead on a new strategy.


Screen Shot 2018-11-19 at 07.17.24.png

Will he? Won’t he? Try and snatch his badge back?


Has Surrey CC leader candidate Dr Andrew Povey taken his plans for global domination too far?


Since managing to persuade The Guildford Conservative Association that he should re-enter local politics once more  – Dr Andrew Povey has done pretty much s** all for the people of Ewhurst & Cranleigh.  But then that wasn’t his reason for going back, was it?

He had a score to settle with David Hodge, for daring to jump into the seat he left after receiving a Vote of No Confidence from his Tory colleagues. And, don’t let him fool you that the vote wasn’t official! since when did Tory’s wash their dirty linen in public? The Tory group had been working behind the scenes for months to get rid of their Little Povey. He, of course, thought otherwise saying, Deputy Hodge had resigned because they were  “seeing things differently.” Now with a score to settle, MLP – wants to grab his badge back.mylittlepovey2

Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 13.03.25.png

Now, Dr Povey is claiming that “Overall life will be better for the people of Surrey.” Presumably meaning – under his control?

 The people of Cranleigh & Ewhurst sent him back to County Towers because among other things, he pledged he would prevent the onward march of developers? Did he? NO! He told them he would protect their local services – did he NO! Children’s centres closing, the Cranleigh dump reduced hours and up for closure.? What did he – almost – succeed in doing when he was the leader?

Almost succeeded in putting in parking meters in every town and village street in Surrey. And, it is believed, he bought thousands of meters and it cost the county council a shedload of money. Though the figure was never revealed – so another bit of dirty washing that didn’t get hung out on the public line?

Still, fear not readers. There are plenty of other contenders for the Head Honcho at SCC – or so we hear.

Here’s a little run down – if you want to pop down to Bet Fred. Be Quick. We are putting our money on Tim Oliver – however, don’t put a heavy bet on – the WW has never won an argument yet!

Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 14.07.17.png


Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 11.55.25.png



The Waverley Web unmasked by Protect Our Waverley?!?


We have noticed that some comments from Protect Our Waverley – Aka Peppa Pig; Cliff Clavin; Stacey Strumpet!! and more, have been addressed to Farnham Resident … Dear David claiming he is none other than the Waverley Web.

Though we have to say that ever since the Dunsfold Park decision – most of the above have all been very quiet – in fact silent. But then isn’t that what The Tremeloes sang… ‘Silence is Golden?’

Just to keep the record straight,  we and every other Farnham resident know that  ‘Dear David’, who was part of  Farnham’s Fearless Five who challenged ‘Your Waverley’ to Judicial Review on Blightwells,  is not a man to hide from commenting on local affairs.

Presumably Bob Lies thinks we are theatre director and U3A bod David Wylde, one of the Farnham Five (on the left) Neither he or the other gentleman featured blow is…

The Waverley Web! But 10/10 for trying.


He nearly fell off his stool from laughing. 

Here are David’s one of many letters to the Farnham Herald on the present state of local government. Makes interesting reading – want to join the WW David?

25.10.18 – Farnham Herald – Deteriorating standards copy

Well, David referring to your letter above Surrey County Council’s Leader has resigned! And with the news that there has been a resignation from Farnham Town Council, you should be seeking co-option?Screenshot 2018-11-23 at 00.07.04.png

Liz the Biz – rides off into the Sunset for a less stressful life?


Pictured below looking like she has just chewed a wasp – head planning honcho the WW dared nickname Liz The Biz, and Betty Boot, is leaving Planet Waverley.


Screen Shot 2018-11-19 at 10.31.24.png

That glum face of Chief Planning Officer Liz The Biz Sims captured at the Local Plan hearing by Protect Our Waverley – could soon achieve a  happier countenance.  WW’s BF – is preparing to say farewell to Waverley Borough Council, along with fellow planner Gail Wooten. Is the planning department imploding? Or have they achieved where others failed? By finally, against all the odds and challenges, provided the borough of Waverley with a Local Plan?  Do they know something we don’t – that Protect Our Waverley and the Campaign for the Preservation of some Parts of Rural England, will not once again be seeking, or be given, leave to appeal to The Supreme Court?

The glum face of Chief Planning Officer Liz The Biz Sims captured at the Local Plan hearing by Protect Our Waverley – could soon achieve a  somewhat happier countenance.

 WW’s BF – is preparing to say farewell to Waverley Borough Council, along with fellow planner Gail Wooten.

Is the planning department imploding? Or have they achieved something where others failed? By finally, against all the odds and numerous challenges, have provided the borough of Waverley with a Local Plan?  Do they know something we don’t – that Protect Our Waverley and the Campaign for the Preservation of some Parts of Rural England, will not once again be seeking, or be given, leave to appeal to The Supreme Court?

They leave the council in the knowledge that former Council Leaders including councillors Richard Shut-The – Gates, and Bobby Knowless – whose failures allowed developers to call the tune by building across swathes of the borough’s countryside, including on floodplains and dangerous country lanes, is now history.

Youth Crime and hate crime is rising in Cranleigh New Town and the Eastern Villages.



…Rising youth crime in Cranleigh and the lack of police presence. Now he is calling on Surrey’s Police & Crime Commissioner – to do something about it!

WOW! Perhaps Martin Bamford, the Deputy Dog of Cranleigh’s  Chamber of Commerce needs to consider the hate crime that is also alive and well in the village dubbed “Poor Old Cranleigh” by Waverley Planners? 

The man Cranleigh people have nicknamed ‘Pastry Chef’ because he has so many fingers in so many pies has written to David Munroe, former Waverley/SCC, now Surrey’s PCC asking him to urgently address the rising levels of youth crime and anti-social behaviour on his patch. But, he doesn’t mention the real elephant in the room?

 He fails to mention the rising number of hate crimes being perpetrated by some of his C of C members – including local pubs, being directed at the Gipsy communities living on the outskirts of Cranleigh?

Our research shows there are three Gipsy communities in the parish of Bramley based in Dunsfold. Soon, another site will join them as Waverley Borough Council has approved a plan for more ‘traveller’ pitches on land off Stovolds Hill Road. 

  • Lydia Park – a settled Romany Gipsy Community.
  • New Acres – a transit Gipsy site, controlled by the same family for over 40 years.
  • Hill Tops – a settled community.
  • Soon to be ??? Irish Travellers.

One particular Gipsy was banned by Mr Bamford from the Cranleigh Community Board which he also manages and censors.  Censorship of other matters including criticism of Cranleigh’s proposed new hospital which has now morphed into a private Care Home are also removed! Don’t dare to mess with any project that Mr Bamford has anything to do with!Screen Shot 2018-11-15 at 09.16.30.png

According to the locals, these signs went up in Cranleigh pubs, and guest staying in this particular establishment were initially told it was due to a Gipsy funeral. They were then informed it was due to maintenance.

The wake was pre-booked at a  Guildford hotel, and investigations by the WW have revealed there were no resulting problems!  However, the following week pubs were shut once again for a Gipsy wedding in Hascombe.

 One Gipsy who was handing over cash to a Cranleigh trader, which was then rejected after he was reminded by his boss saying. “I cannot deal with you Pikies.” However, many shops and beauty businesses tell the WW a different story.   A Cranleigh hairdresser, who said he dared not be identified  said :

“we wouldn’t be in business if we lost their custom. And, we have never had any problems – they are delightful, often nicer than our kind”

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 09.46.05

Screen Shot 2018-11-02 at 10.06.18.pngScreen Shot 2018-11-09 at 09.52.51.png

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 09.52.16.png

Mr Bamford’s letter to the police, on behalf of the local business community, highlights the lack of police presence in the village and why this is an important issue for business members.

Business premises in Cranleigh have recently been subjected to a series of ball bearing catapult attacks, causing thousands of pounds worth of property damage.

HE says, “we have also seen fireworks being launched at motorists and businesses in the High Street, and eggs thrown at High Street premises.”

According to a Waverley Web follower who saw known youths from Cranleigh families misbehaving, says the blame is being aimed at the Gipsy community because they are an easy target.

Says Mr Bamford, despite these high profile and serious events, there has been little noticeable police presence or action in response.

We appreciate the funding pressures faced by Surrey Police, which led to the closure of our police station in 2012, replaced by a police post at Cranleigh Leisure Centre with no public access front counter.

With a large number of houses being built in the village over the coming years, and rising levels of crime and anti-social behaviour being reported by our members, it is important that a police presence in Cranleigh be re-established as a matter of priority.

One of our objectives as a Chamber of Commerce is for Cranleigh to be a location to attract, retain and encourage growing businesses and their employees. Rising crime and the lack of police presence here will make achieving that objective increasingly difficult.

We will share any response received to this letter in due course.

The WW wonder if the pubs will be shut again for routine maintenance on 28th November when another Gipsy Funeral will be held in Cranleigh?

Chocks away for another Dunsfold Museum?


Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 16.34.34.png



Amidst all the furore over planning consent for 1,800 homes at Dunsfold Aerodrome, the call-in of the decision by the Secretary of State, the subsequent Public Inquiry and appeal by CPRE and Protect our Little Corner to the High Court, a planning application to build an 8,000 sq metre warehouse / museum in a green field on a small rural road just a hop, skip and a fence away from the Aerodrome itself has passed largely unnoticed by many.

But WW wonders what on earth Protect our Waverley has been about whilst this application –  first registered with ‘Your Waverley’ in 2016, we understand – has been grinding through the planning process?

One would have thought they would have been all over this application – which is slap bang on their doorstep – like a bad rash. But, no, once again, contrary to their all-encompassing name – Protect our Waverley – Protect our Little Corner has proved – in case anyone was in any doubt – that it really is a SINGLE ISSUE CAMPAIGNER entirely focused on stopping development at the Aerodrome and nowhere – but nowhere! – else. Not even a hop, skip and a fence away from the Aerodrome’s bloody boundary!!!

The Wings Museum is currently based in Balcombe, Sussex, in a large hangar-style building aiming to provide an insight into life during World War II, with memorabilia from the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, the Home Guard, D-Day, Bomber Command, etc.

Having outgrown its existing 12,000 sq ft home, the Trustees have acquired a green field off a rural lane in Dunsfold and, despite a minimal income of circa £20,000 per annum, has grand plans to build a 4,000 sq metre building in phase one of their development and grow it to 8,000 sq metres in due course.

With projected visitor numbers of some 20,000 per annum, it is hard to think of a site less well suited to a museum.  If consented visitors will be obliged to approach the new museum via Dunsfold village or Alfold Road, wending their way down single track rural roads with few passing places and multiple blind bends. This is particularly concerning given that a location plan, submitted with the planning application, shows a large area given over to coach parking!!!

 Our followers over there nearly choked on their cornflakes when contemplating a 52-seater coach navigating the narrow confines of The Crossways into Dunsfold Road!!! Woe betides the driver if they happen to meet a Cranleigh Freight HGV en route! That’s an encounter they say they would pay good money to see!

The Museum’s planning application has garnered a number of expressions of support primarily, it must be said, from existing Wings Museum enthusiasts, none of whom, it appears live in Waverley. Surprise! Surprise! Folkestone, Worthing, Kingswood and Horley are but a few of the outposts from which these supporters hail and, clearly, they don’t have a clue about the location of their pet project which one local objector refers to as ‘a rural location: reference to Policy RE1 Countryside beyond the Green Belt in the new 2018 LPP1′.

Reading their correspondence, a number of the Wings Museum enthusiasts seem to be under the mistaken impression that the new Museum will be situated on Dunsfold Aerodrome itself but that isn’t the case. As far as we can ascertain from the locals over there, it appears to be situated on land formerly owned by the Barnfield Estate.

 Barnfield my ring a bell for regular WW readers as a property – which has been on and off the market like a yo-yo for a number of years now – owned by Rupert Howell, of Trinity Mirror Group (owners of the Sorry Advertiser).

One can’t help wondering why, oh why, oh why, the Wings Museum is going it alone on the fringes of Dunsfold Aerodrome when, surely, it would have made much more sense, not least logistically – as the majority of the proposal’s objectors point out – to approach the Dunsfold Developer with a view to merging with its existing on-site museum, thus benefitting from the improved access and transport links that an already consented new settlement at the Aerodrome will inevitably bring.

We at the Waverley Web aren’t planning experts but if Little Britton and his wife (serial objectors, we know, but, for once, they might actually have a point!) are to be believed, the size of the proposed museum structure – at a height of circa 15 metres – is larger than almost all the existing hangers and industrial units at Dunsfold Park today! Tellingly, Little Britton and his wife also point out the proposed new building could comfortably accommodate 270 double-decker buses!

It’s not often – if ever! – that the Waverley Web has reason to agree with Little Britton but in this instance, it concurs that the proposed location of the new Wings Museum is completely inappropriate in this particular spot. Why the hell would Waverley BC consent development on this scale on a greenfield site when it could so much more easily and sensibly be accommodated on an adjacent brownfield site? A brownfield site, moreover, that already has a small museum of its own which could so easily be expanded, over the course of the development, to accommodate both – especially given their themes are similar and therefore eminently compatible.

If Waverley Borough Council’s Planners and Planning Committees had an iota of common sense they would turn down this application and tell the Trustees to go talk to the Dunsfold Developer.

Several objectors point out that they fail to see how such a small charity as the Wings Museum – with annual receipts of circa £22,000 from approximately 5,000 visitors – can possibly afford the construction and development of a multi-million-pound project which would increase the size of its existing museum to six times that of its current site.

The recently opened Aerospace Museum in Bristol, whose running costs were £1.25 million in its first year, had over 150,000 visitors, generating receipts of some £1.91 million. These figures alone call into question the commercial viability of the Wings Museum’s proposal:

1. If it is deemed to be commercially viable then it follows that the visitor numbers will, necessarily, be huge and this greenfield site on a single-track country lane with few passing places and very poor public transport links simply could not cope with them.
2. If once consented and built, the Museum proves to be unviable, what will happen to the building? Will the museum’s trustees/benefactors seek a change of use to warehousing or other industrial uses?

One can’t help sympathising with one local objector who pleads with Waverley Planners to refuse the application ‘as it appears to be a cynical, speculative and disproportionate venture by whoever is bankrolling the Museum.’

And that begs a whole new question:

Just who is bankrolling this scheme and why did Mr Rupert Howell – who is still trying to flog his adjacent country pile – sell off one of his fields to the Wings Museum when he and his wife were keen supporters of the Stop Dunsfold New Town Campaign? That being the case, why on earth would they sell to someone who wants to park another bloody great hanger on their back lawn?

Waverley’s planning meetings are beginning to​ resemble war zones. Where’s Betty’s Boot?



Ever since Chief Planning Honcho Betty Boot slipped off on a very welcome holiday? Or has she gone AWOL – chaos has reigned over Waverley Towers. The Borough’s Council Chamber has looked more like the trenches every day as Councillors from across the borough hunker down to take a shot at officers’ recommendations to approve developments – or change planning conditions. 

Even the Chairmen – David Else – and we know our followers won’t believe it – but now even Peter Isherwood has started to say …


  • WW wonders? Is it the forthcoming Waverley Borough Council elections that are sending a chill wind from the East up their ever flaring angry nostrils?
  • Is it that smart, new boy on the block from Godalming – who is appearing all over the borough in a bid to uncover local opinion before he quaffs his hat at the planning officers and does their bidding, or doesn’t as the case may be? 
  • Or is it the threat that has hung over Farnham since the Surrey County Council elections – since the Farnham Residents bagged seat?
  • Or, could it possibly be – that they are starting to smell the concrete and the exhaust fumes in their own backyards?

Thank God, the planners can rely on Good old Groucho Goodridge to approve anything, anywhere, anytime – as long as it isn’t on his Wonersh patch,  doesn’t move and is ready to attract concrete!

Come back Betsy, your planning committees are getting above themselves. They are starting to represent the people of Waverley, the voting fodder who elected them rather than hanging onto the coat-tails of Government planning policy, meeting your housing targets whilst fearing your ever-present boot up their backsides! 




Councillors have halted the closure of Farnham By-Pass over the Christmas shopping period claiming it would wreak​ havoc on traders?


However, if you watched the webcast of Waverly’s Joint Planning Committee you may be totally confused by Crest Nicholson’s bid to carry out work affecting the A31 24/7. 


To close, or not to close, a lane on the A31 – 24/7? This would enable developers to build a bridge over troubled waters, to gain access to the Blightwells Yard development site during the busiest trading month in Farnham shopkeepers’ calendar?

The developer already has permission for partial road closures but believes complete closure 24/7 could shorten the predicted disruption from 16-weeks to between 4-6.

However, any work on Surrey’s roads is embargoed by the county council between 19-Nov and 7th December to minimise disruption to travellers.

After one of the most confusing and turgid debates, peppered with discombobulating explanations by Richard Cooper Surrey County highway’s supposed road planning ‘expert.’  The debate was so muddy and unclear, it made the effluent going into Farnham’s sewage treatment works look clearer than Evian Water!

When the Webcast wasn’t switching off Farnham Resident’ Councillor Jerry Hyman  –  it cannot be coincidence, can it?!?! He was able to join others in expressing concerns that changes to existing conditions supported by Waverley’s planning officers – could be catastrophic for Farnham businesses.Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 21.01.08.png

“Do we really want our residents shooting off to Guildford or somewhere & else to do their Christmas shopping?” Do we want to gridlock Farnham Town Centre – and kill off trade in this town at a critical time of year?” He also predicted dire consequences in roads around  Farnham station and South Street due to 3-second phasing changes at the lights.

Farnham Councillor Andy McLeod said the town’s Christmas lights would be turned on this week – three weeks before the introduction of the county embargo. If the developer went ahead next week, work could, if the condition was changed,  take place for 3 weeks 24/7 prompting chaos in Farnham town centre.  

He claimed If members followed officers advice not only Crest Nicholson, but both the county and Waverley council’s reputations would be damaged! Car park closures would damage trade too. He wasn’t suggesting work should not take place, merely postponed until mid-January.

Others pointed to the developer’s failure over many years to get on with the job, which four years ago former councillor Adam Taylor-Smith had described as being “shovel ready!” Godalming councillor Paul Follows said his local research revealed the strength of local feeling. “We have to do what is best for the residents of Farnham, not a developer!” The application should definitely be deferred until after Christmas.

Officers argued there was a short window of opportunity before demolition of Berkeley’s Woolmead development began, with its resulting HGV movements. To miss that could cause even more traffic problems.   Crest Nicholson had an extant permission and could start work immediately during limited hours – until 7 December when the county council embargo would be triggered until 7 January.

However, councillors narrowly refused by 11 votes to 10 to change the planning condition.

However, should it wish? The developer can close one lane of the A31 between 9am-5pm from Monday.

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 15.05.12.png

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 15.05.42.pngScreen Shot 2018-11-14 at 20.21.29.png

Mud, mud glorious mud in Alfold where they are building homes – water, water everywhere they are​ going to build homes in Cranleigh.


The locals over there in the East of our borough are snapping away for social media. Some of which have been sent to us here at the Waverley Web.

Thank you all.

Pictured yesterday is a scene on the busy Loxwood Road in Alfold at Cala Homes,’ Sweeters Copse development. Villagers are warning of the dangers on the road alongside the development of 55 houses now under construction. They are asking why the developer ensures its lorries are hosed down, but the road isn’t, as in a dangerous mess all the way to the Crossways Junction with the busy A281  Horsham to Guildford Road?


Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 11.10.21.pngScreen Shot 2018-11-17 at 11.12.53.png

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 11.14.02.png

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 11.14.32.pngScreen Shot 2018-11-17 at 11.13.33





Sod growing food – let us eat bricks says Cranleigh Chief Pr***?

Here’s another proposed building site in Alfold Road, Cranleigh on a former lettuce nursery! Thankfully,  it has the Cranleigh Godfather, spokesperson for the:  Chamber of Trade, the Knowle Park Initiative; Censor of the Cranleigh Community Board and spokesman for all things Cranleigh. 

Funny though Cranleigh’s Chief Twit – didn’t describe this as “a puddle” that Cranleighs “old ladies” got worked as he did in a post a while back?Screen Shot 2018-11-16 at 19.34.28

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 12.12.34.png


Now here’s a cunning plan from a Waverley resident.


An idea, that the Waverley Web has been suggesting for some considerable time. When Surrey County Leader David Hodge resigned, it is claimed that he cried! Well, join the club Councillor Hodge, because a great many residents of Surrey have been crying over the past few years. Whilst some of their angst has been prompted by the Government’s swingeing cuts to local authorities, those responsible for making local decisions which affect us all have made some crass decisions. Decisions which have often cost money rather than saved it!

Here’s what one Cranleigh resident thinks in a letter published in the Guildford Dragon –  on-line newspaper.

Screen Shot 2018-11-15 at 17.50.09.png

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


Waverley Planners has booted out a Phase of 130 homes destined to be part of a 425 swathe of housing between Knowle Lane and Alfold Road, Cranleigh.


You may ask – would one of the most prestigious housebuilders in the country want to construct the affordable home element of its development, below the National minimum space guidelines?

This IS Cranleigh Phase 2.2 130 Homes with 77 Homes  = 59% below Government Minimum Space Standards 

Even Worse- Why?

Having acknowledged that a number of the proposed units would not accord with space standards. Did Waverley’s planning Officers dare to tell members of the Joint Planning Committee that? 

‘Officers nevertheless consider that an appropriate standard of accommodation would be provided on site.’

The Government Technical Housing standards – nationally described space standards (2015) requires dwellings to meet certain internal space standards in order to ensure that an appropriate internal standard of accommodation has been provided for future occupiers.

 How duplicitous of Waverley’s so-called ‘planning experts’ to attempt to dupe the councillors they are there to serve, into believing there was some sort of increase in the number of affordable properties being offered by the developer. When it was patently obvious that there were not?

But councillors from across the borough were UNANIMOUS in their condemnation of Berkeley Homes’ attempt to shove up the size of more lucrative market homes and stuff vulnerable families, now and in future, into small units, below Government space standards, some in three-storey blocks!!

Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 18.47.45.png

Alfold’s Councillor Kevin Deanus lambasted the developer saying it was putting …

‘Profits before people.”

“Of the 130 homes, 75 fail to meet space standards (57.7%) Berkeley’s should be ashamed how it has treated affordable homes in this matter. It is shameful that it has pushed up the 4-bed by 40sq m. This is something to do with profits. This after it promised it would build something of which Cranleigh could be proud.”

This week Berkeley’s announced that the ‘Executive homes,’ adjacent to Knowle Lane were going on the market at £1.3+m. 

One after another – including Cranleigh councillors Liz Townsend, Mary Foryszewki slammed the scheme. With Councillor Foryszewski claiming this BIG developer which history had shown had plenty of money to throw at even more planning appeals, could do it again! But her attempt to seek a deferment for talks failed.

Others, from across the borough,  claimed the scheme was so flawed it had to go…

“back to the drawing board.” 

There were also very serious concerns about the Phasing and part phasing of the project which councillors believed could lead to dangers for people living on the parts of the site already developed. It is an open secret in Cranleigh that the developer is transporting thousands of tonnes of spoil from its Rudgwick site to build up land levels and that ancient woodland has been damaged. 

My my! – What high manhole covers the BB’s are building in Cranleigh.

Screen Shot 2018-11-15 at 10.30.12.png

Now you see it! Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 18.40.02.png

Now you don’t!

Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 18.47.00.pngScreen Shot 2018-11-14 at 18.46.09.png


Berkeley Homes Space Standards





‘It’s not a frivolous case. It has merit. We’re doing this for the whole of Waverley …’

What a crock of shit as Donald Trump would say! Or, as we at the Waverley Web would have it, what a pile of effluent from the affluent!

POW’s Capt’n Bob Lies was at great pains to sound eminently reasonable and emollient when interviewed recently by Lesley McCabe, of BBC Radio Surrey, following his comprehensive defeat in the High Court.

‘We’re not against housing in the right place …’

Yeah, right! If the biggest brownfield site in the borough, adjacent to a major A-road, isn’t the right place we wonder where is?

Answer: anywhere, absolutely anywhere as long as it’s not in his backyard. 

‘If only Waverley [Borough Council] had negotiated and engaged with us remotely positively …’

By which he meant rolled over, saying ‘Yes POW. No POW. How low do you want us to go POW?’

Ms McCabe  asked  Capt’n Bob(CB),  about his crew’s finances but, slippery as an eel, he  spoke deprecatingly of POW being reliant on ‘the generosity of the people in the Borough who think we have a case …’  

The WW will be revealing more on that later!

Presumably, he meant  the high-rollers who, in the words of Charles Orange Esq of Hascombe Place, Hascombe, don’t intend  looking across their rolling acres at a ‘sink estate at Dunsfold Park.’ Or, referring to the developers with deep pockets who have banked on Capt’n Bob, Little Britton and the Parishes) trouncing both Waverley’s Local Plan and the DD in order to continue concreting over every green field with their grubby little diggers? Ask the people of Faarnham, Halemere, Godalming and Cranleigh? 

 Our moles deep within The Bury’s bowels tell us even Deputy High Court Judge Natalie Lieven accused POW of being less than transparent about its financial resources. Sources, which despite having been given guidance in respect of information required by The Court to support its application for Aahrus Protection and, offered multiple opportunities to do so  …


 Many believed information POW did, belatedly and very reluctantly, provide, prompted  more questions than answers. Its  funding source (or should we say funders?!) was a key issue. Not only did POW choose not to provide that information, but the Judge didn’t  insist on it doing so! Preferring, instead, to let the poor old Waverley Council Tax Payer foot the bill for POW’s frivolous frolics in the High Court.

WW  had expected that the lack of cost protection from the outset (it wasn’t granted when POW was initially granted leave to appeal due to its failure to submit sufficient information to allow the matter to be decided at that stage) might prompt a worrying level of concern and circumspection for POW. But oh no, Capt’n Bob, Little Britton, Alan Gone-to-Ground & Co continued sleeping soundly in their bunks due to promises from the unnamed backers who had pledged to provide the readies should Good Ship POW capsize. No mi casa su casa worries for CB & Co as it was for our  Farnham Five!

Throughout every step of its choppy journey POW has spared no expense:

  •  Professionally represented by a team of litigators who, don’t come cheap and, from the limited financial evidence POW  provided to the Court, it was clear that from the day of its incorporation it has successfully raised substantial sums of filthy lucre as and when required. Largely via pledges arranged through the parishes aided by Alfold Parish Council Chairman – Solicitor Nik Pigeon and Crystal Tipps Weddell. 

The fact that it has been consistently coy about its supporters underlines the paucity of its numbers. Legitimate organisations with nothing to hide are only too willing – proud even – to demonstrate where its funds come from – particularly if it’s a small, steady stream of donations,  from a large number of local residents – but not POW.

In 2017 it raised circa £256,000 – a vast sum in a relatively short space of time – to enable its representation by multiple expert witnesses at the Public Inquiry into the Dunsfold Park planning application.

 In just three weeks in 2018, our moles tell us POW raised £30,000 + pledges which took its total fundraising to circa £57,000 –  all without having to hold so much as a raffle!

And, before Stacey Strumpette tweets about The Sun Inn Quiz Night where she met ‘Cliff Clavin’, a quaint little exercise to show the Judge –  that POW didn’t magic money out of thin air, but actually held an event … only the one? Well, of course, only one! Why waste time on trivia when you have three or four Bank City Rollers on your speed dial!

Disclosures in Bob Lies FOURTH – yes,  4th! – witness statement to the Court (which is virtually unheard revealing just how unforthcoming he was in the previous three!) gave no indication of where the money came from or how POW was able to raise such sums so quickly!

No wonder CB & Co see no need for affordable housing at Dunsfold Aerodrome; with their fundraising abilities, by putting their minds to it, they could provide every under 30 yr-old in Waverley with a mortgage deposit faster than you can say bankers’ bonuses!

Still think poor POW is cash-strapped?

Think again! Key planks of POW’s legal argument were kicked out at the outset on the grounds that they were unarguable.  Yet, despite this major setback, and despite not securing cost protection in advance of the High Court Hearing, POW had no hesitation whatsoever in ploughing ahead with its disturbingly shaky case,  leading everyone involved in the High Court action to conclude that whatever liabilities POW accrued it could  call on its  well-heeled backers to pick up the pieces.

Waverley Web has no issue with the Judge’s decision to throw out POW’s lamentable arguments but why in the face of overwhelming evidence (or POW’s lack of it)  did she permit these Alfold/ Dunsfold Divas to fleece us Council Tax Payers yet again? If nothing else, the utterly woeful lack of respect by POW and its Rumpoles shown in relation to the procedural elements of its Aahrus application should, we believe,  have resulted in the Judge throwing its call for costs limits in the shredder.

Instead, these persistent pygmies live to fight another day and Surrey’s poor old  commuters on the A3 had to listen to Capt’n Bob proclaiming POW is ‘doing this for the whole of Waverley …’

If you believe that, you’ll believe Elvis and Michael Jackson were spotted jamming at The Sun last night and Lord Nelson is about to get his eye back!


Roll up, roll up – the housing circus continues unabated in the former village – dubbed by Waverley planners​ as – “poor old Cranleigh.’​



The developer circus has well and truly arrived in Waverley’s New Town. There will be shedloads more if developers get their way.

 Cranleigh New Town has become an established part of Waverley’s bid to cover the Eastern part of the borough’s countryside in concrete.

And this week another green field looked destined to bite the dust.

 However, Waverley Planners unanimously refused by 17 votes to give Phase 1 of the detailed scheme consent.

 Instead, deferring it for further consultation.  

Nick Vrijland and Alan Spriggs’ scheme for the first 67 of 265 homes in the area now   dubbed – ‘Poor Old Elmbridge.’ People living in the area say they are “sick and tired” of the endless disruption and noise.

Councillors were at one in claiming there were insufficient affordable homes – and described the design of the proposed ‘contemporary’ housing estate as Marmite – ‘you either love it or you hate it’- and most hated it!  

Screen Shot 2018-11-12 at 13.33.11.pngScreen Shot 2018-11-12 at 13.33.33


Members claimed that there were insufficient guarantees that the Public Parkland promised as part of the overall scheme would ever be provided. Citing this, and the high provision of affordable homes offered in the outline consent, as being the prime reasons why planning permission was granted, so far from the village centre, in the first place. They were unimpressed that this was now being degraded to only 14 affordable homes – 21%. Neither were they satisfied that three homes earmarked to provide funding for the parkland’s upkeep in perpetuity would be sufficient? 

However, the council’s planning ‘experts’ were happy to support the scheme despite knowing that until the 200th home was occupied in Phases 2 and 3 the public park would not necessarily go ahead.


Despite repeated requests, officers were unable to provide members with a timetable for Phases 2 and 3 of the A2 Dominion development, only to say the timing was – “fluid.”

“So what if the developer decides that 37% affordable housing granted at outline stage for all three phases of 265 homes  – now reduced to 21% in Phase 1 is not economically viable? Or it’s flogged on to yet another developer.  And, how could specific homes be handed to a Trust that had not been formed “ Asked Councillor Liz Townsend? How many trees would be sacrificed and why did it need metal entrance gates in what was once a rural lane?

Farnham’s Jerry Hyman asked – what if only 198 of the 200 homes were built? How long would it be before the public park was actually provided? What would happen if the developer goes bust, or cannot complete the remainder of the phases, or wants to reduce the affordable home provision in the later phases? Far too much confusion – too many unanswered questions! “Sounds to me like someone wanting to do the profitable bits first – this is could prove to be very dangerous! 

The council’s officers and solicitor struggled to answer most of the questions posed by the increasingly sceptical members of Waverley’s senior planning committee. Particularly when the lawyer suggested that if the further phases did not come forward …

 Waverley may have to buy the parkland – or seek legal redress from the developer!

By this time, all Cranleigh Parish Council’s worst nightmares were being played out at once in Waverley’s council chamber. Fears and confusion heightened yet further when the officer said 35% per cent affordable housing would be provided in the Phasing Plan for the remainder of the development site on the other side of Alfold Road, but revealed there was no actual phasing plan!

By our calculations, fewer AH homes (21%) being provided in Phase 1 would result in over 40% plus affordable required in Phases 2 and 3.  So what guarantees did the council have that this figure would be met?

Mike Band – said Waverley needed to fire a shot across the developer’s bows, telling it to provide the required number of affordable homes they had received permission for!

Responding to officers comments that Cranleigh’s Berkeley Homes development was also phased – and only Part 1 was under construction – Councillor Patricia Ellis bit the bullet!

“That was granted by an Inspector and the phasing was agreed by him. She said Cranleigh had so many properties being built by so many developers, and she was suspicious that not all will ever be completed. “Some developers are already talking about phasing developments themselves – and that it would depend on the market whether or not they would actually ever be finished. – and who is going to fill all these homes?”


Cranleigh Councillor Liz Townsend told the Joint Planning Committee if the promised affordable homes and public parkland was not provided it would be a complete betrayal of the people of Cranleigh! 

In the officers’ report, the applicant confirmed that, subject to ongoing investigations and pre-application advice, planning applications for Phases 2 and 3 are likely to be submitted to the Council for consideration in Spring 2019 and Autumn 2019 respectively. These dates are fluid and may be subject to change.

The sun sets on Surrey’s sinking ship.







Oh No! Please tell us that this man is not bidding to become Surrey County Council’s new leader?


Please Waverley Planners – can we have more concrete?


What we need is more concrete to collect run-off!

While the world was looking back over this past weekend the people of Haslemere were looking forward too!

The Waverley Web did a reccy on our Haslemere Patch in Scotland Lane which was flooded out this weekend and where cars were abandoned. Other parts of the borough were also under water.

Isn’t this an ideal spot to put another shedload of new properties? A site earmarked by Waverley Planners for 30 homes in Part 2 of its Local Plan. A plan which has been withdrawn for “further consultation?”

Where are you now POW? Helping the people of Haslemere to protect their countryside?

File 11-11-2018, 20 24 51.jpeg

File 11-11-2018, 20 25 58.jpeg

File 11-11-2018, 20 24 51.jpeg

File 11-11-2018, 20 29 23.jpeg

Oh No! Please tell us that this man is not bidding to become Surrey County Council’s new leader?


mylittlepovey2Ever since the day Cranleigh’s Little Povey was ousted as Leader of the County Council and  Deputy ‘Hodge the Bodge’ jumped into his role – Our Little Povey (OLP) has been fighting to snatch that badge back.

David Hodge has told his Conservative colleagues, at the soon to be flogged off County Towers, that he intends to resign as leader in November. 

Possible successors, including Dr Andrew Povey, are already jostling for a position in the leadership stakes, according to our Waverley Council informants. But it is likely he may have competition in climbing up the political greasy pole, having unceremoniously slid down to the bottom after a vote of no confidence which saw the SC councillor for Cranleigh & Ewhurst leave politics altogether – only to return in the last election. But OLP, could be in for a disappointment because other equally ambitious Tories, one of whom believes he is heading for Westminster when the present incumbent takes a Leap into the ~ Lords!  

None-other than  Matt Furniss the deputy leader at Guildford Borough Council and the county councillor for Shalford.

But one county councillor said she thought it unlikely that Cllr Furniss, the youngest councillor at GBC, who was only elected as a county councillor in 2017, would be able to gather enough support to make a serious bid. So OLP -could be galloping into the home straight before you can say Puckamuck!

Or, perhaps it could be our Farnham Gal. Our very own Waverley Mayor Denise? Presently performing in her robes as a  vital part of the Surrey Chain gang. After all, it was she who persuaded the County’s Tory group to stump up over £50m from its pension fund to throw into the Blightwells pot, a retail investment for the county that would generate millions of pounds? Could the County’s finances be safe in her hands? But then wasn’t she heard urging her children to hang on tightly to their Canadian passports just in case Brexit went wrong? Nothing like hedging your bets?


David Hodge pictured just before he passes a motion to slash £250 million off the Surrey County Council budget to prevent it going for broke? 




The CILly Season will begin soon?



Here’s what one Waverley Councillor has to say about Community Infrastructure Levy – the means by which developers will in future contribute towards services, including leisure, education, transport and more.

In recent months the race by developers to get their plans approved has been evident, and many more will hope to trouser schemes before next Spring.

‘Your Waverley’ want this in place in the borough by March next year.


The man who presided over failed Daft Local Plans – now stands up to halt development​ on his own​ Haslemere patch.​


Waverley’s housing allocations have been withdrawn for “more work” following protests.

Having failed when he was Council leader to get even a daft Local Plan onto the stocks, who better than Councillor ‘Bobby’ Knowless to criticise his successors’ efforts to get LP Part 2 underway! Part 1 of which is now protecting the borough.

But then having inflicted a Developer-led plan all over Farnham, Godalming and the East of the borough isn’t it typical that Councillors Carole King and Bobby Knowless call a halt to efforts to despoil their own patch?

Both Haslemere borough councillors spoke out recently urging Waverley’s ‘rushed’ Local Plan Part 2 pre-submission document to be deferred.

Councillor Bobby Knowless and Oh Carole! – King,  protested to Waverley’s ‘watchdog’ overview and scrutiny committee that the document was not ‘fit for purpose,’ as it made assumptions without evidence about housing sites in Haslemere that were not deliverable.

Committee members were being asked to comment on a document containing site allocations for the 11,200 homes Waverley is required to build by 2032. Without their intervention, the document would have gone out for public consultation at  Christmas – before being officially submitting for adoption.

Now due to the concerns raised by Bobby and Ms King, Witley councillor Nick – ‘the brick’ Holder and Milford’s Denis Leigh, Waverley decided to defer any further consideration of the document until ‘further work on site allocations’ has been conducted.

LP Part 2  was due to go to Waverley’s decision-making executive and full council at a special meeting, prior to approving the document for public consultation – but it has now been taken off the agenda. No date has been given for when the document will now be considered.

Waverley’s Tory leader Julia Potts, said: “This item is being deferred as councillors want the council to have more time to engage with the local community about some of the content of the draft LPPII before it is published, including further work on site allocations and gaining further feedback from key stakeholders such as Thames Water and local clinical commissioning groups.”

The pre-submission document contains some important changes to site allocations, following the last public consultation that triggered 990 responses borough-wide. But “watchdog” councillors objected it needed more work.

Urging that ‘reckless’ site allocations should be deferred, Bobby reminded members Haslemere had suffered days of water cuts and shortages during the summer because Thames Water’s reservoir was too small! Didn’t mention that when agreeing to all those development in the East or in Farnham, did he?

He said: “It seems a report has been tabled, where members are being asked to take the risk, of no water, gas or electric, as there is no confirmation from the responsible bodies that services can be supplied or maintained.”

“And make no mistake chairman, it will be members that take the blame when the lights go out for allowing this to proceed without the proper information.”

Bobby also objects to building 50 houses on Haslemere High Street Waitrose car park claiming it is undeliverable as there would be nowhere for the 143 displaced motorists to park while building work takes place?

Mrs King told the committee: “To be frank I am embarrassed by this report. It is sloppy and either ignores or puts aside major obstacles.

“As has been stated the National Grid, Southern Electric, Southern Gas and even the Guildford and Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group has not responded.”

Hasn’t anyone ever told her they never do?

She continued, “How on earth can a report be put forward to the council for approval, when this vital information is missing?”

OH, Carole – because ‘YW’ of which you have the honour of being part does it all the time – where have you been for the past few years – on the Planet Zonk??

Mrs King also objected at WBC’s assumption that it could remove Wey Hill Fairground car park’s common land status.

Has Mr Angry of Haslemere finally picked up his phone to his Waverley councillor?

Alfold gets a new heart – and a safer village?



Waverley councillors have approved a scheme to bring Chapel Fields into the heart of Alfold despite objections from planning ‘experts.’ 

As outrageous as it may seem it took a determined developer to devise a housing scheme that would fund basic highway safety measures!- Vital road improvements have been called for but ignored for decades by the county highway authority! But it is partly due to Surrey County Council’s own development on Lindon Farm adjoining Chapel Fields that prompted councillors to overthrow their planning officers advice to … REFUSE!

Thanks to the landowners – and a determined Agent – Alfold will get now get 8 new homes – from two to four bedroom, a shop and cafe, a play area, and a central village green – but more important than all those put together – a safer highway through the village.

Waverley councillors, some of whom have a personal connection with the tiny Surrey/Sussex border village were able to recount their own personal experiences of one of the most dangerous country roads in the borough.

The Loxwood Road is a popular route for lorry traffic from the Shoreham Docks, and a busy link into the A281 Alfold Crossways a scene of numerous accidents. One several years ago, saw a female motorist die outside the village shop. Her death brought appeals for the highway authority to provide safety measures. 

Alfold Councillor Kevin Deanus said his village had recently been bombarded with development. Development both “inappropriate and insensitive” and which had provided the village with “absolutely no benefits.” The application before the eastern committee offered numerous benefits welcomed by many, including the parish council. He claimed SCC’s development nearby had,  “changed everything.”

Cranleigh, and former Alfold councillor, Mary Foryszewski said the scheme would “enhance the Conservation Area,” and here, at last, was a developer putting something back into the community.


Cranleigh’s Jeannette Stennett predicted the scheme would open up the village – give it a new heart and anyone who had ever driven from the bottom of the Loxwood Road past the sharp bend on the hill, would welcome with open arms the traffic calming measures. Saying, It was what Alfold had needed for a very long time. Alfold had lost pubs, a fine restaurant and with the Development at nearby Dunsfold now approved, this thriving community deserved more. “I am giving this all my support.’

Councillor Stewart Stennett said he had personal experience of his own traffic accident there, saying the extra 20 car parking spaces for the Chapel, and residents parking would be welcomed by all.

Bramley’s By-Pass Byham who always welcomes traffic improvements, said in all his time at Waverley he couldn’t recollect  Alfold Parish Council ever supporting “anything” – so would definitely supporting this application.

However, Wonersh’s  Grouchy Goodridge didn’t believe the shop or the cafe were viable and the scheme was just a ploy to get housing development onto the site. The councillor who regularly reveals he is permanetly joined at the hip of planning officers with superglue argued against. “The developer has dangled a carrot in front of us? So what happens when these facilities are unviable? I certainly won’t be voting for it.”

After Ewhurst’s Val Henry spoke of her “excitement” about a scheme bringing with a raft of benefits for Alfold people. It was then left to Chairman David Else to call for a vote?

Despite a bit of confusion, which was not helped by officers seemingly completely disinterested in advising members on important conditions to be imposed on the scheme it was agreed by 10 votes to two. With Groucho and Chairman David Else voting against.

Will Waverley councillors back a scheme that the locals claim could breath new life into Alfold?


Screen Shot 2018-11-06 at 20.04.34.pngOr will they follow the recommendation of their very own planning dummies and refuse a widely supported scheme for eight homes – a cafe shop – and a car park?

Tonight Waverley planning ‘experts’ will once again recommend refusing development on land in the Surrey/Sussex border village – which has been hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons recently! Will this site on which development has been sought since 1986,  once again be kyboshed by planning officers who are ignoring local opinion – including those of village leaders on the parish council? (However, shouldn’t  someone tell the parish council that Grampian Conditions aren’t worth the paper they’re written on).

Perhaps Alfold’s Councillor Kevin Deanus can be as persuasive in supporting this application as he has so ably demonstrated when objecting to other totally unsuitable schemes, that officers have backed to the hilt in the east of the borough?

It beggars belief that Surrey County Council with Waverley’s support can build on land to the rear of Lindon Farm, formerly part of the same holding on which permission was refused to every other applicant. But then grant itself planning permission for three large buildings for supported living accommodation for autistic children with access from a one-way dangerous country lane!  Every other past application had been refused by its very own engineers’ on highway objections! Double-dealing or what?

Then along comes a community facility – a Cafe and a shop, which locals say will complement the existing village shop –   in a village with scant amenities. Along with the added bonus of a car park (10 spaces for a village church and 10 for residents’ parking, plus a traffic calming scheme)  and a play area in the heart of the old village – and the planners say…

… OH NO!

Dumb or what?

Come on Councillor Deanus – get your truncheon out and knock some sense into your so-called experts and get Cranleigh’s Liz Means Biz, (not to be confused with Betty Boot), and your fellow councillors along with you?

Tell them about the numerous accidents that have occurred on the dangerous bend where a woman died just a year or so back. Tell them about the dangerous parking, and the numerous incidents, accidents, damage to property that are a regular occurrence in Loxwood Road.  (We have researched this and our followers over there have been writing to us)!

And… how can anyone claim this doesn’t fit into the street scene?

Screen Shot 2018-11-06 at 20.04.55.png

Existing housing and church – a footpath eight homes and a car park, cafe and shop behind?  But the ‘experts’ don’t like it!




Yet again Capt’n Bob Lies and his cohorts have been kicked into touch, this time by no less a personage than a High Court Judge.

As we reported yesterday, Judge Natalie Lieven dismissed all the arguments put forward variously by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and Protect our Waverley (POW). They failed to derail not only Waverley Borough Council’s Local Plan but also the planning consent to build 1800 houses at Dunsfold Park. 

 Our Legal Eagle followers of the WW are pouring over the Judge’s decision and we’ll report in more detail on the whys and wherefores when we hear from them.

In the meantime, we can only hope this will be an end to POW’s disgraceful shenanigans, which have cost Waverley Council Tax Payers, dear.  Whilst essential services are being  cut to the bone, the wealthy-well-to-do of Awfold, Dunsfold and Kerchingfold have  played fast and loose with taxpayer cash with no regard whatsoever to the hundreds of thousands of pounds it has cost ‘Your Waverley’ to repeatedly defend itself and its residents from their kamikaze-style antics in relation to the Local Plan. 

However, given their chutzpah, no such luck!  Capt’n Bob’s has already issued his siren call: “A peal!  A peal!  No!  Not a peal of bells, you fools – we lost!  APPEAL!  APPEAL!  All aboard the Good Ship POW!  Next stop the Court of Appeal!”

 This despite CPRE having leave to appeal refused yesterday by the Judge on Monday, we understand CPRE and POW’s lawyers are now crawling all over her decision looking for a foothold from which to launch an appeal …  Sadly, with CPRE’s liability for costs limited to £10,000 and POW’s limited to £30,000 they are clearly not only undeterred but determined to continue their bloody battle to the bitter end. 

The Pope and God are on standby we understand, with all leave cancelled in Cloud Cuckoo Land!

In Pow’s  Press Release Bob Lies accused the Judge of an ‘apparent misunderstanding of the details of the case and misinterpretation of planning law.’ 

We doubt anyone expected Bob Lies and Little Britton to be gracious in defeat but insulting a High Court Judge … well, that just smacks of contempt of court!

As Capt’n Lies blathers on, about POW standing up for the residents of Waverley but what he really means is standing up for the residents of Awfold and Dunsfold.  It’s about time someone challenged Protect our Little Corner on its oft-repeated but completely unverified claim that they speak on behalf of thousands of Waverley residents.   These bozos keep telling anyone who will listen – not to mention plenty who’d rather not! – how many supporters they have and yet no one – not even two High Court Judges – have insisted they back up this claim with a verifiable membership list! 

Why not? 

POW love figures; they’ve thrown them around like Smarties during their latest skirmish in the High Court but their own sums are entirely ambiguous and even their biggest fan couldn’t claim, hand on heart, they’ve been remotely transparent regarding them …

On the one hand, POW claims to have thousands of supporters and yet on the other they swear they have no money to speak of.  Are we the only people to think that doesn’t add up?  Awfold Parish Council, aided and abetted by Nik Pigeon and Crystal Tipps Weddell, laundered £256,000 for POW and yet, despite this, those mendacious mealy mouthed men argued vociferously that the costs of their latest failed High Court Challenge should be limited to a measly £10,000!  And even though the Judge raised their cap to £30,000 that still leaves the Waverley Tax Payer picking up the costs of the fight POW picked with the Secretary of State, Waverley Borough Council and the Dunsfold Developer.  That’s the equivalent of going on a spending spree with someone else’s credit card.  Nice work if you can get it but, at best, it’s deceitful and, at worst, criminal in our opinion!

If POW goes ahead with its threat of another challenge they will, no doubt, suddenly and mysteriously, have the funds in place to set it in motion  – as they have done at every twist and turn in the past!  It’s not a case of living hand to mouth, as they claimed to the Judge, it’s simply a case of refusing to explain how and from whom they raise their funds!  Never mind what they claim to have – or not have – in their bank account; what’s more important and key to their funding arrangements is…

…who exactly does it have in its back pocket! It certainly isn’t coming out of Bob L’s wallet – because local tradesmen are contacting the WW – claiming he isn’t paying his bills, and they are threatening  Court action!!

So who is really pulling POW’s strings?  If we were going to trot down to Bet Fred, our money would be on a few High Rollers and one or two local developers who were, and will now be, even more anxious to see development at Dunsfold Aerodrome go down in order to better their own chances a hop skip and a field or two away. 


Which leads us to wonder?

Where this leaves Nik Pigeon and Crystal Tipps Weddell’s grand plan, in cahoots with Thakeham Homes and Little Britton, to inflict further development on Awfold?  With the consent for 1800 homes at Dunsfold Park now verified by a High Court Judge?


… can Alfold Parish Council continue to justify its championing of development at Springbok – especially when the residents of Awfold (whom they’re, allegedly, elected to represent) made their feelings in this respect all too clear?  The residents of Awfold DON’T want further development now they have reached their quota.   We all know Nik Pigeon has admitted to a pecuniary interest in the Springbok scheme and has been angling for it to get the go-ahead from the get-go – even before it was put before the Parish Council first time around! – but we ask again (and we’ll keep asking until we get an answer!) what’s in it for Crystal Tipps, Betty Ames and Little Britton?

Dunsfold and Waverley’s Local​ Plan get the​ go-ahead​​ in the High Court today​.


Remember – you heard it here first. This post will be updated throughout the day.


Dunsfold Deja-vu. The WW has been saying this for a very long time.




And she is singing at the top of her voice. 

Sadly we have not yet received an official comment from Protect Our Waverley or the Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England – so instead we have used this as it might just sum up their feelings. Or, of course, they could all be heading for The Supreme Court or The Pope…?

Screen Shot 2017-08-31 at 14.06.40.png

But never mind- we (POW) cost the Waverley taxpayers a small fortune in legal costs with the total support of all those generous parish councils. – Particular thanks from POW goes to our Bankers at Alfold Parish Council.


A full report of the Judge’s decision will follow. Including her ruling on whether or not Protect Our Waverley has been awarded a limit on its costs to just £10,000 under the Aarhus Convention legislation – (People for Justice). 


The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (or some parts of it!) has been refused Leave to Appeal by the Judge. It will have to pay £10,000 in costs as it had Aarhus protection. 

However, POW has not been quite so fortunate. Its cap on costs was increased by the Judge from £10,000 to £30,000. This still leaves US the Waverley taxpayers with a big hole in their pockets!

Here’s Waverley’s Press Release. Julia Potts.

LATEST NEWS – THEY AIN’T GIVING UP UNTIL EVEN MORE OF THE TAXPAYERS’ MONEY GOES DOWN THE PAN!! But surely someone somewhere is going to have these people up for vexation litigation. Even the Judge knows nothing now!

Here’s Pow’s Press Release. http://powcampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Press-release-POW-Nov-5.pdf

Will the this year’s CILLY season arrive in March?


Although it has already arrived at the Sorry Advertiser by totally confusing the handful of people who actually now buy it in Waverley. It has failed to mention to whom CIL applies, and grossly inflates figures.

C I L stands for Community Infrastructure Levy – sounds a bit boring – but it won’t be boring, in fact, it will be very useful when it arrives on ‘Your Waverley’s doorstep.’

Because our borough, in common with many others – including Guildford,- had no approved Local Plans in place, developers have dealt with their contributions towards such things as education, roads and leisure facilities through what are called 106 agreements. These agreements will continue for some very major developments in the future. So even if CIL had been available NOW in the case of Crest Nicholson; Cala Homes; Bewley Homes; Berkeley Homes; A2 Dominion; Bellway; Thakeham Homes;  Dunsfold Aerodrome; and on and on … it could not be imposed.


Because quite simply Waverley Borough Council does not have an adopted Local Plan! Why?  because it is presently being challenged in the High Court by Protect Our Waverley – known locally as stop Dunsfold at any price – and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). Challenges that have cost millions!

‘Your Waverley’ has now agreed its CIL levy, which is considerably higher than other borough’s in the country. However, all credit to them for pitching the CIL high and sticking to their guns in the face of considerable opposition from developers. All the above with the exception of DunsfoldAerodrome – if it ever receives consent – pays minimal contributions in 106 contributions. 

The plan seems to be that anything granted after 1 March 2019 will now be liable to CIL. And yes, we are sure you agree – shutting the door after the horse has bolted comes to mind!

Also, see around para 68 re Dunsfold. Some people may not like the outcome but at least WBC’s approach has been independently verified.

The point which seems to escape people, including the Sorry Advertiser, is that building a new settlement is more expensive than bolting 200 houses onto an existing settlement where you can piggyback off the existing infrastructure. Perhaps the SAd should start looking at some of the other developer contributions? Including one who is contributing £174,000 towards a 3G sports pitch for one of the top public schools in the country?

And, for those who regularly accuse us of supporting development at Dunsfold. We have, and will continue to support development on brownfield land rather than concreting over the borough’s countryside – whoever it is built by and wherever it is.

Final Report to Waverley BC Sept 3 2018