As time goes by…Cranleigh Village employment site R.I.P!

Featured

Bemoaning the past is considered unhealthy by some, but where exactly will those small start-up businesses operate from in the future?

Brian Steel’s facebook comment has a point – where will all those new home occupiers work, rest and play? In Horsham/Crawley – Guildford – Farnham-London? Or… maybe Dunsfold?

Waverley Borough Council – prompted by a local councillor, proposed building a replacement Hewitts Industrial Estate in woodland adjacent to the Mansfield Park Estate in Guildford Road at Rowly. But of course, WBC has sent £1m aside for the development it would part-own!  So no problem getting planning permission there then?

Coming soon to a green field near you!

Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 11.02.16.pngScreen Shot 2018-04-17 at 11.07.39.png

Then, of course, we have heard from our followers that the site which was spearheaded by a local farmer to give locals a purpose-built business unit. It also boasted such tenants as P & P Glass, Muriel Short Designs; Mike Short Wallpaper; (He papered the walls of Royal Palaces); Decorex; and more…

Perhaps the locals over there can tell us more at contact@waverleyweb.org

Wealthy neighbours of Cranleigh Cricket Club FAIL in their attempt to bowl a googly​ at its practice nets!

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 21.06.07

Cheers for Cranleigh Cricket Club – -v- Common residents and the parish council

Here at the Waverly Web we have often wondered why people buy homes around picturesque cricket grounds and then start moaning about cricket balls flying around. Or in Cranleigh’s case “horrible”  unsightly” cricket practice nets that prevent them flying around!

Probably because the thwack of leather on willow and games played by men in whites on picturesque village greens paint a picture of idyllic village life – but the reality is slightly different.

Along with the typically English country scene – comes the downside! BALLS – which sometimes have to be contained by… NETS!

We once heard of a Waverley borough local who let his dog crap on the cricket pitch while youngsters were having a game near his home. He claimed as it was recreation or common land, he was quite within his rights!

The Secretary of Cranleigh Cricket Club when faced with a £6,000 bill for removing, and replacing this metal structure every year said removing them every season would severely impact on the club’s finances and its ability to provide coaching for over 200 youngsters, both on Cranleigh Common – land’ and at local schools.Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 19.12.28.png

He stressed permanent nets was a “standard requirement” of the English Cricket Board, and a bid by neighbours to have them removed and re-erected every season was unheard of anywhere else in the county, or anywhere in the country! 

He argued, that the club, which had played on Cranleigh Common for more than 150 years, was a thriving asset which in addition to coaching its own members coached children at three local primary schools.

However, Cranleigh parish councillor Rosemary Burbridge described the new nets as ‘horrible’ saying they were both detrimental to the area and the residents’ amenities in the Conservation Area and they should not be permitted to stay. Councillor Patricia Ellis agreed, saying the frame was both “unsightly and unattractive.” Councillor Liz Townsend agreed but said a “compromise” could be found.

Neighbour Richard Everett pictured, said although he was “supportive of the game of cricket”…

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 19.13.34.pngwhich presumably is why he bought a home overlooking the common?

Believed Waverley’s eastern planning committee had an “obligation to uphold the Conservation Area Act and protect the character and appearance of the area.” So the cricket net structure should be removed at the end of every season and re-erected in April!

While councillors deliberated the officers’ recommended to allow an existing planning condition to be changed giving the club the flexibility for the structure to remain with nets being removed after the last competitive game in September, and for -paraphernalia – screens to be re-sited. Councillor Mary Foryszewski said perhaps “compromise” was the answer.” The club said painting the structure GREEN, would make it less intrusive.  Councillor Stewart Stennett agreed saying, the so-called ‘untidy paraphernalia’ – e.g. screens which had been there for over 100 years – were on wheels and could be moved around the common whenever the club liked.

So, he said: for goodness sake grant permission and let me go home and get my tea.”

We wonder what comes next?

Banning parking around Cranleigh Common, no doubt? After all who wants cars,  bringing in spectators, cluttering up residents’  front yards!

Godalming people​ Taking Green Oak School fight to County Hall.

Featured

Will the reckless officials of Surrey County Council, who only last week squandered the opportunity to receive £380,000 from Taylor Wimpey to provide school places in Farnham – ignore the anger of Godalming residents at the proposed closure of ‘Green Oak School.

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 20.18.33.png

 

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 20.09.57.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 20.09.46.png

Click on the link below to read of the Farnham debacle!

When is someone, somewhere, going to stand up and tell Waverley Council it is no longer fit for purpose !

Have a guess how much money, NOT having a Local Plan, has cost the Waverley borough?

Featured

HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF POUNDS!

The mathematicians in one small part of the borough – but an area most affected by not having an up-to-date blueprint for development, has had the abacus out! And Cranleigh Civic Society’s findings make grim reading, they are quite simply – staggering! Particularly if these figures are extrapolated across all the major towns.

 At last, we have a LOCAL PLAN, but even that is now the subject of three separate Judicial Reviews to be heard in the High Court shortly!

An agreed LOCAL PLAN gives Waverley Planners power to control future housing development; they can plan for the development of new infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, hospitals etc.  More important it enables the Borough Council to charge house builders a COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY known as CIL for short. 

What is  CIL?

 CIL raises monies towards the cost of the new Infrastructure needed for developments to go ahead. What a wonderful step forward we all exclaim!! and so it is. But what of the housing already approved? 2,000 houses and growing every day throughout the borough. 

Unfortunately, CIL is not retrospective.

How much will Waverley charge? www.waverley.gov.uk/CIL

Waverley’s draft proposal sets a CIL rate of £395/ Sq Metre of floor area for all new housing, (about £40,000 on an average 3-bed house), except quite reasonably for “Affordable Housing” where there is no charge. So taking the 35% of Affordable Housing the Borough is committed to building away from the approximately 2,000 houses so far approved, there will be a loss of CIL to the tune of a minimum £60 MILLION pounds. £60 MILLION pounds that will NOT be available to improve our ROADS, our SCHOOLS, our HOSPITALS, our BOROUGH!!

 How could this have happened we may ask? It happened because our planning officers at Waverley failed to come up with a plan that satisfied the Government’s criteria for a LOCAL PLAN.

How a Local Plan is developed by the Borough Planners

The basic criteria affecting us as council tax payers was to identify suitable sites for new housing. This has to satisfy the Central Government’s housing policy, a requirement that was for about 350 houses a year until 2032. Woking BC have had an agreed  Local Plan for some years that has now proved inadequate, so the inspector added a further 150 or so houses per year to WBC’s to cover their shortfall! So WBC’s Yearly requirement rose to 509 houses until 2032 (a total of 7,126 houses) 35% of which must be “Affordable”. Plus a further rise to 590 was deemed necessary by the inspector recently to take account of some of Woking’s unmet need. 

What of democracy?

Of these 7,126 houses, a minimum of 4,300, rising to perhaps 5,000 are planned for CRANLEIGH and DUNSFOLD, with the balance spread around the rest of the Borough; We have to ask – just how democratic is that?

 Improvements to our Local Roads and Rail?

Perhaps we could have a new road to rescue us from the A281 Blight? Unfortunately not: there will, however, there will be a new roundabout at Shalford. The Elmbridge Road and Bramley crossroads junctions will be reconfigured, There will also be a new Canal bridge at Elmbridge but no new bridge over the old Railway.

What of the Railway?

No plans whatsoever have been considered since SCC’s last feasibility study found not enough demand and not affordable. However, Waverley is stipulating in the Draft Local PPlan {Part 2)Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 18.03.33.png

 

So if anyone comes along with a cunning plan for introducing a new railway line – “the movement corridor’ is protected! So watch out By-Pass Byham you may get what you wished for!

What of DUNSFOLD AERODROME?

There is a plan for 1,800 homes, plus businesses,, shops, a school, a medical centre approved by the Government.  The adopted Local Plan, now being challenged also includes increasing this to £2,600.

Dunsfold, due to its approval when 106 agreements were applicable and due to the limitation CIL would have on this major development there will be NO CIL. However, the Dunsfold developer will be contributing well over £50m towards a whole series of infrastructure improvements, not just the five included in CIL contributions.

And that is just the East of the Borough. Maybe, someone over here in Farnham will do the maths here?

Much of this article was contributed to the Waverley Web by the Cranleigh Civic Society, we have however made a few minor alterations in the interest of accuracy and the up-to-date situation on challenges to the Local Plan.

 

The battle goes on for Green Oak School, Godalming, but is Surrey County Council listening?

Featured

Why would Surrey County Council want to close a School and Nursery at a time when Godalming is growing?

Here’s what Councillor Penny Rivers told the Extraordinary Meeting in answer to the question ‘Should Green Oak School and Nursery Close?’

THE ANSWER WAS AN EMPHATIC NO! 

ARE YOU LISTENING SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL?  IGNORE THE PEOPLE OF GODALMING AT YOUR PERIL!

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 09.14.20.pngScreen Shot 2018-04-19 at 09.14.39.png

Penny, Ollie, Paul Follows and the Green Oak PTA parents have submitted some formal questions to the Tory SCC Cabinet next week.

We must talk about that Milford Golf Course covenant and that challenge by Mr House of the Local Plan!

Featured

As “Your Waverley’ keeps the champagne on ice – here’s one of the reasons why OUR LOCAL PLAN has been halted in its tracks!

houyseshouse.jpgThe very thorough Bea at the Haslemere Herald featured the issue of Mr House’s Covenant on Milford Golf Course, which is now the subject of a legal challenge to the Local Plan.

According to the Herald’s busy little Bea, in the Local Plan part one, surplus land at Milford Golf Club was allocated as a ‘strategic’ site for 180 houses, although it is in the green belt. Government Inspector Jonathon Bore has requested it’s GB status be removed to help meet Waverley’s and some of Woking’s housing targets.

However,  the land is the subject of a restrictive covenant owned by adjoining householders who are determined to prevent a major development on their doorstep.

The historic covenant allows some development, but not on such a large scale. It stipulates “one detached dwelling house to the acre with one lodge and one cottage suitable for and intended for occupation by a gardener, chauffeur or other employees of the occupier of the said dwelling house”.

Let’s all hark back to the ‘good old days’ when we all had housekeepers, gardeners and indeed the new must-have  –  a chauffeur.

Mr House seems to be relying on this very old-fashioned covenant, in a document he is yet to disclose to the Council or the Planning Inspector. The Covenant doesn’t save the site from development, in fact, it actually encourages development! 

As the ‘Houses’ (very apt name for a lawyer attempting to prevent just that) but acknowledges, the total number of units which could be built consistent with the covenant is 81: 27 main dwelling houses together with up to two units of staff accommodation on each plot (see §29 of counsel’s opinion).

Whether 27 or 81 is used as the number of units that could be built consistent with the covenant, any additional disruption would not be sufficiently substantial to satisfy the test.

The existing house is well set back from the boundary line and shielded by a mature boundary of trees and hedgerow. The house cannot be seen from the development land. In addition, there is no good evidence (indeed any evidence) to show that any reduction in value to the House’s land would be significantly affected regardless of whether the development was 27, 81 or 180 units.

Waverley’s detailed response to the Local Plan inspector about the covenant – [link] with some excerpts highlighted below:

Haslemere Herald report of Local Plan February 2018

Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 12.18.36.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 12.19.37.png

No doubt the High Court will be viewing those conveyancing documents soon?!

Godawfulming’s Town Council forced into action by its residents.

Featured

Feelings are running so high over the threatened closure of Green Oak School, that the Town Council was forced into calling an EXTRAORDINARY TOWN MEETING – the first in its history.

But the Tory-controlled council – that has more than just a few skeletons in its council cupboards – was at pains to point out to its  Surrey County Council masters that pressure from residents forced into such an unprecedented step.

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 13.43.49.png

Hark! Is that criticism of their fellow Tory colleagues that we hear… no surely not! 

In the second par – in Godalming Town Council’s letter, an extract of which appears above and the full text in the attachment below – it speaks of the electors’ frustration!

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.06.23.png

http://godalming-tc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SCC-Green-Oak-School-Consultation-Closure-of-Green-Oak-School-Letter-from-The-Council-13-April-2018-Web-Version.pdf

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.08.07.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.08.32.pngScreen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.08.51.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.09.07.png

THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD FROM THE SORRY ADVERTISER

Featured

 

With delicious irony, in a recent story in the Sorry Advertiser a headline read HOMES NEEDED BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ROADS? alongside a photograph of The Wintershall Estate actors who brought Guildford High Street to a juddering halt as they performed The Passion Plays on Tunsgate over the Easter weekend.

Relegated to page 13 – unlucky for some! – was the Sorry Ad’s Round-up of reactions to Dunsfold news. Bob Lies, chairman of Protect our little corner of Waverley, opined: ‘While more housing is needed it should be put in the right place and Dunsfold clearly is not the right place with its totally inadequate infrastructure.’

WHAT is that man on? The only thing that is clear about this whole sorry saga is that Bob Lies and his campaigning cohorts consider the largest brownfield site in the borough, with direct access onto an A-road – moreover an A-road that doesn’t even appear in the top 10 busiest A-roads in the county! – ‘clearly is not the right place’. The man and his minions are barking! The only people that deem Dunsfold Park ‘not the right place’ are some, and it is only SOME, residents of Alfold and Dunsfold, who don’t want their rural idyl polluted by  people who, once the new village is built, will – in the words of Dunsfold Park’s QC, ‘Live more sustainably than they themselves do.’ What a nincompoop. We’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating, Mr Lies would do well to take a leaf out of the late Sir Denis Thatcher’s book:

BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND BE THOUGHT A FOOL THAN TO SPEAK OUT AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT!

While Mr Lies was saying, ‘We now trust the local authority and the site owner to work closely and constructively with the local community to ensure the adverse impacts of the development are minimised ‘ his legal beavers were preparing to challenge the Local Plan. ...’ To the best of our knowledge Dunsfold Park has spent the past 15-odd years trying to work with the local community, and at every turn, they have been snubbed and vilified by Mr Lies and his predecessors, Stop Dunsfold Park New Town.

In the Bramley Babes Update, published on the same day as the Sorry Ad, it said:‘Despite all of our best efforts, this is not the decision we were hoping for. Should have added: we’re not giving up…yet!

We know from our Bramley correspondent that year after year tickets for Top Gear were requested and generously donated by Dunsfold Park to the village fete and Bramley and other Infants School, helping to boost their coffers!  What price a little gratitude?

Meanwhile, MP Moaning Milton, who made no secret of her opposition to Dunsfold Park and, in cahoots with fellow MP Jeremy S-Hunt, are guilty of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds council tax payers money making Waverley Borough Council jump through hoops in its bid  to meet the housing quotas dictated by their Conservative Government, now has the nerve to pontificate:

‘Now that the Planning Inspector has approved the building at Dunsfold, it is absolutely essential that every possible step is taken to fund and provide the supporting infrastructure we need. This will be critical during the construction period. I will, therefore, pursue every possible mitigating measure to help local residents in Alfold and Cranleigh.’

What a pity Moaning Milton didn’t give some thought to the millions of pounds that could have been spent on local infrastructure if the Dunsfold Developer hadn’t had to fight, tooth-and-nail, her dirty little behind-the-scenes shenanigans. We wouldn’t go knocking at the Dunsfold Developer’s door if we were you, Moaning Milton!  You’re the last person likely to persuade the DD  to support any initiative you’re spearheading. From what we’ve heard from some of the Dunsfold businesses.

 You won’t be invited to break ground, you’ve spent far too much time breaking wind!

Meanwhile, there’s a little light relief on the Sorry Ad’s Letters Page:

H Alexander of the Residents Greenbelt Group, claims that ‘buy-to-let landlords have effectively bought every property built since 1985′ and that ‘Solving the housing crisis will not be achieved by destroying the countryside but by sensible policies such as reversing buy-to-let so as to bring those 5 million properties into occupier-ownership.’ Watch out Jeremy S-Hunt – AKA Peter Rachman of Southampton – Comrade Alexander has your buy-to-let portfolio in his sights!

• Meanwhile, Paul Woodhams, of Merrow, is ‘appalled at the decision to allow 1,800 homes to be built on Dunsfold Park. No thought has been given to the problems of the extra traffic along the A281.’ Durrrhhh! Where have you been, Mr Woodhams? One of the reasons the application was consented is due to the proposed mitigation measures improving the traffic problems on the A281. The learned gentleman goes on to say that he ‘suppose[s] our local Members of Parliament will be silent on these plans ...’ If only! Again, where have you been? Moaning Milton has been banging on about nothing but for years!!!

Disgusted of Woodland Avenue demands to know, ‘What makes it OK now when it hasn’t been viable before?’ Does anyone bother to read the paperwork? The Planning Inspector and the Secretary of State in their respective report and decision letter were at great pains to explain what makes it OK now when it hasn’t been viable before! Get with the programme Mr Baldock! Try reading the report then you won’t make a fool of yourself asking daft questions that everyone else knows the answer to, even if they don’t care to admit it because it’s such a very inconvenient truth that Dunsfold Park will make the A281 less congested if and when it’s built than the road would be if it isn’t built!

Seriously, folks, no one minds you having your say – after all, it was still a free country last time we looked – just! – but if you’re going to pontificate, at least take the time to do your homework, read the paperwork and try to get your heads around the facts rather than the drivel that has been propagated by the likes of Bob Lies – the clue’s in his sobriquet!

 

The controversial consultation on 180 homes on Milford Golf Course – begins.

Featured

See if you can spot Milford Man’s great big pad- next to the golf course, and near the railway station, below?

Milford man is just one of the band of three challenging Waverley’s Local Plan. Read it by clicking on the link below.

Read all about him here: While Farnham man rejoiced, Milford Man WAS BUSY TRYING TO SCUPPER THAT DAMNED PLAN!

30571467_10156393777224973_4679740440952438784_o.jpgDid you Spot the big House house in the bottom right-hand corner right next door!

But remember CPRE – more land in Surrey is under Golf Courses than housing – at the moment:

 

Ah! well,​ Jeremy SHunt – we all make mistakes…but not all of us get away with them so easily!

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-04-14 at 11.10.47.png

JeremyHunt_kingofbuytolet

Here’s our post a month ago: Hypocrite Hunt hoovers up homes in Hampshire!

The UK health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has apologised after it was discovered he made errors over the purchase of luxury flats on England’s south coast.

Hunt said his failure to declare a business interest with both Companies House and the parliamentary register of MPs’ interests was down to “honest administrative mistakes” and that he did not gain financially as a result.

Hunt failed to notify Companies House of his 50% interest in Mare Pond Properties Limited, named after his home in Markwick Lane, Hascombe – something that took him six months to rectify.

He also did not inform the parliamentary register of members’ interests of his share in the business within the 28-day time limit, according to the publication.

It is claimed Hunt set up the company with his wife, Lucia Guo, to buy seven properties in the Ocean Village development in Southampton on 7 February.

A spokeswoman for Hunt said: “These were honest administrative mistakes which have already been rectified. Jeremy’s accountant made an error in the Companies House filing which was a genuine oversight. With respect to ministerial and parliamentary declarations, the Cabinet Office is clear that there has been no breach of the ministerial code.

“Jeremy declared the interest to them after the company was set up. They advised that as it was a shell company with no assets or value, it should only be registered

As those potholes get bigger – there may be even worse to come!

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 12.16.39.png

South East Water received reports of customers in Sheephatch Lane, which include the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association’s Islamabad base and Garner’s Field scout campsite, having no water.  An inspection revealed part of the road surface had collapsed from a leak in an eight-inch diameter water main.

The lane will be closed from its junction with Tilford Road until Monday, April 16.

South East Water said:  “We would like to apologise for any inconvenience this repair work has caused the local community and thank them for their ongoing patience.”

Although a severe example, it adds to a raft of potholes and damaged road surfaces across the whole of Waverley. Not all of the damage has occurred this winter, some occurred in 2016/17 and remain to be filled!

Large potholes have formed on several key roads across Farnham, with notable cases on the A325 outside the Co-op in Wrecclesham Road and in West Street near the Coxbridge roundabout.

A number of motorists have taken to Facebook to report damage to their vehicles after colliding with the potholes.  Jack Butterfield blames the A325 hole for blowing his tyre and chipping his alloys – causing hundreds of pounds of damage. Others have reported damage which has wrecked the wheels and mechanics of valuable cars. Motorists say they will be seeking compensation from Surrey County Council for repairs.  

It comes after the county council announced a new £5 million investment in the county’s roads “to help reverse the impact of the winter’s weather” last month.

Surrey has also recently been named the worst county in the UK for potholes.

Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 12.16.21.png

Here’s what Waverley Web suggest…

Because potholes are appearing faster than Spring lambs!  ..!!!Come to Surrey and visit the UK’s capital of potholes – on and off-road! or 

image1

Here’s what one Farnham resident writes in the Farnham Herald.

30657348_10156287663451613_1734367026018779136_n.jpg

Potts goes…potty!

Featured

nightmareonwaverleystreet

… and who can blame her?

After all her hard work and all that heavy-lifting, dragging Waverley Borough and its Council into the 21st century, creating and adopting a long overdue Local Plan, Protect our Little Corner of Awfold, Duncefold, Kerchingfold and Where-has-all-the-traffic-combe-from have waited until two minutes to midnight to throw a hand grenade into the room!

Together with the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the ineptly named Mr & Mrs House (seriously, you couldn’t make that one up!!!) PoW have launched a legal challenge over the adoption of Waverley’s Local Plan!

Call us cynical but we – and pretty much everyone else who knows anything about it – suspect that this is POW’s cunning ploy to scupper the planning consent just granted to Dunsfold Park. The infamous Bob Lies and cohorts are simply re-running the same old, same old arguments they ran at the recent Dunsfold Park Inquiry.

ANOTHER circa £200,000 down the borough drains!

As for CPRE, their knickers are knotted over Woking’s unmet housing need, which was added to Waverley’s numbers, resulting in an additional 83 houses per annum to Waverley’s target. OK, we get it, it’s not ideal but what CPRE fails to tell the public in its indignant, self-righteous justification for its actions is, that if it gets leave to appeal, not only will that leave Waverley totally exposed because it won’t have an adopted Local Plan but residents will have to cough up circa £200,000 to defend CPRE’s action!

gonetopotts

No wonder Potts has gone off on one! She said: I am appalled that we have to spend money on legal expenses AGAIN when we could be spending it on services – £200k at a time when, as a council, we face enormous financial challenges and are doing our utmost to deliver and protect key frontline services for our residents.’

Too damn right! And as Waverley council tax payers, we at the Waverley Web fully endorse, Potts’ assertion that the Council will ‘pursue full reimbursement of all legal costs we incur [and] these campaigning pressure groups must understand that this irresponsible abuse of public money will not be tolerated by Waverley Borough Council and its residents.’

We never thought we would find ourselves saying this but – deep breath

‘THREE CHEERS FOR POTTS!’

Now here’s a thought: why not give CPRE £200,000 to go away? After all, we all know these so-called rural campaigners are open to a spot of bribery!

We’ve all heard the one about how Clive Smith, the Surrey Hills AONB Planning Adviser (and bosom buddy of CPRE, whose AONB Board he sits on) repeatedly objected to Lakshmi Mittal’s £30 million mansion that he wanted to build in the Surrey Hills until, finally, finally, FINALLY, the billionaire took the oft repeated hints dropped by Mr Smith and his colleagues and greased the palm of the Surrey Hills Trust with £250,000 of silver and then suddenly – but entirely unsurprisingly – Mr Smith did a complete volte face and withdrew all his objections! Result! A win for the Surrey Hills AONB and a win for Mr Mittal, who got his planning permission.

Just goes to show everyone has their price – even so-called rural crusaders!

The hypocritical Clive Smith even went so far as to sing for his cheque by rocking up at the billionaire’s estate, quaffing his Champagne whilst bad mouthing all other development in the Surrey Hills! We know we’re repeating ourselves but, seriously folks, you couldn’t make it up! if only these people could see themselves as others see them … Now you know where Cheque book Clive got his sobriquet!

So there you have it, Leader Potts, it’s just a thought but why not take a leaf out of Mr Mittal’s book and call down to the Accounts Department and ask them to write CPRE a cheque for £200k to make them go away? OK, you won’t save any money but you’ll save yourself and your officers a shed-load of work and stress and you could save local residents from having several concrete mixers full of more housing dumped on us!

Eh?

Durrrh! You really need to read the small print!

What CPRE’s Surrey Director, Andy Smith, didn’t tell us when he was sounding off, is that if Waverley’s Local Plan fails and a new one has to be created Waverley could end up with even higher housing numbers being dumped on its green and pleasant fields because the Government will shortly be bringing out yet another new method for calculating housing numbers so we could end up with even more houses rather than less!!!

The words Be careful what you wish for come to mind …

PS. For those of you who’re wondering where Mr & Mrs House fit into the scheme of things, see our post of 7 April. And for those who can’t be bothered, here’s a quick resume: They’re just your average Surrey NIMBYs. They object to a proposal to build 130 houses on a golf course near them and as Mr House boasts of a successful 30-year career as a litigator, what’s he got to lose? After all, with his salary and bonus package, he can afford to dig deep if Waverley goes for costs!

While Farnham man rejoiced, Milford Man WAS BUSY TRYING TO SCUPPER THAT DAMNED PLAN!

 

PAUL FOLLOWS – Godalming’s new man on the council​ block plays a blinder in support of the town’s schoolchildren.

Featured

Here’s his message to townsfolk,  which was forwarded to us here at the Waverley Web by a follower. In his message, Councillor Follows did not include a picture of himself. 

 

Paul Follows - Lib Dem GodalmingTonight I attended the public meeting in Godalming regarding the exam question ‘Should Green Oak school be closed’ – to an earth-shattering ‘No’ from the assembled electors of the town.
Fantastic democratic expression and I was proud to be a part of it.

I was also proud to introduce my guest, Mrs Lou Anderson of the Castle Hill Academy Trust to challenge the utterly false notion that there are no options and to put forward, to the town – proposals and future discussion points.

The diocese and others clearly object to councillors such as myself stepping into the search for a MAT. But if the people who should be looking, aren’t – and I have little confidence they have tried – I will step in for the good of the community (as an elected representative of that community) and do what I feel needs to be done. This is what I did today – and I will be working with the reps of the diocese and the proposed MAT to try to work through some of the more difficult issues to be addressed.

I have really tried to resist being too party-political during the campaign to save the school – but I say this last comment to a number of conservative councillors who decided to utter some unhelpful comments to us following the meeting –

I will work with anyone I need to in order to help get this done – but put in the work in the real world and not just when someone gets a camera out. Real cuts across the board from your party are a HUGE contributor to where we are today, and especially in communities like Ockford And Aaron’s Hill. Take responsibility for that too in the same way you take Party money and logo when you stand for election.

Finally, I want to say a massive well done to the parents, especially Karen, Nicole, Claire and Pete (and everyone else who spoke and asked extremely sensible and relevant questions). I would also highlight that MATs getting in touch with us only happened due to the massive publicity and social media presence generated by parents and Liberal Democrat councillors so a shared ‘well done’ all around.

Onward and upward. Tonight opened up new paths and opportunities to explore!

30441500_174532483267623_7309895167966707712_o.jpg

 

https://www.facebook.com/paulfollowsGodalming/?hc_ref=ARTt6hvgy3RHAFAIPvtoECMIvk3N1oKoEj6pGnYrm90sYs1kIpm491HhmQDYFbMISvA&hc_location=group

When is someone, somewhere, going to stand up and tell Waverley Council it is no longer fit for purpose​!

Featured

A COMEDY OF ERRORS.

Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 21.29.55.png

The residents of Farnham deserve better than to watch this for the first 15 minutes of Waverley most senior planning committee as they debated the details of a major – 120 housing scheme on the old Hopfields that affects the residents of Crondall Lane in Farnham!

You guessed – that webcast that was flogged on E-Bay wasn’t working… again…!

The system is not for purpose and neither is the council!!

Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 19.05.27.png

BLANKETY, BLANK!

They also deserve better than the muddled, confusing, misleading, and according to many councillors the “gobsmacking” apologies for errors, inaccuracies, misinformation and the revelations provided by planning officers. The joint planning committee heard with incredulity last night, that a major developer’s infrastructure contribution for a circa £150/120m development of 120 homes at Crondall Lane, had dropped from an amazing £914,000 at the outline stage of the scheme – to £514,000 at the detailed stage. 

Oh! and guess what – Surrey County Council couldn’t come up with a project for provision of the necessary primary school for the children from those 120 homes, so they just let the developer get away with contributing, – yes, you guessed, nothing! Is that the same county council that has just put up our council tax by 6% because it is strapped for cash!

Suffice to say a member of the public Stewart Edge, raised a shedload of issues; but of course, we couldn’t actually see him! Farnham Residents councillor Jerry Hyman raised another shedload and whenever he bowled a googly at the so-called ‘experts’ he was either fed a fair amount of the stuff we put on our roses or was shut-up by Chairman Peter I tell residents ‘what I think of them only when the mike is off’ Isherwood! And his side-kick Carole Cockburn said, – we are where we are – ‘though I am a bit concerned for the residents of Beavers Close and Beavers Road’ (in other words ignore all the mistakes) and then she said – let’s approve it!

Just as we all just got to the point when Councillor Jerry proposed that the application be deferred – following cries from others of –

the committee was misled at the outline stage” – “Why weren’t we told there was to be a £300,000 reduction in the Infrastructure contributions,” “why have certain conditions been excluded, others are not tight enough.” “Why can’t `I understand the report,” Why aren’t the pages numbered – it is so confusing.” What if our decision here tonight brings on another legal challenge?  And from non-other than councillor Brian Adams the former Portfolio Holder for planning – I am astonished at the scale of the changes,” and so it went on and on… and on!

The Betty BIZ said: “The mitigation agreed remains sound, it is not appropriate to revisit that.”

However, Jerry Hyman said the council’s lawyer Dan Lucas told the Joint Planning Committee  IN APRIL 2017 that the “catchall principle does apply to habitat applications and so the principle of development can be reviewed and, in fact, must be reviewed if an error was made!

And then just as it got really interesting … the WEBcast finally gave up the ghost and died!!

Probably because ‘Your Waverley’ has just cocked up again!

SO HAS EVERYONE  VOTED FOR THIS FLAWED TAYLOR WIMPEY SCHEME  WHO HAS OFFERED UP A PIECE OF LAND IN CROOKHAM PARK AT THE QUEEN ELIZABETH BARRACKS PARK NEAR FLEET IN HAMPSHIRE. A  SITE  THREE MILES AWAY AS  MITIGATION FOR THE LOSS OF LAND IN CRONDALL? 

PERHAPS SOMEONE SOMEWHERE WILL  TELL US ALL WHAT THE DECISION WAS AND IF IT WAS DEFERRED?

We are putting our bets on with Bet Fred for another Tory whitewash!

Here’s the link to the webcast that starts at 1 hr 25 mins.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIsaHhaW-Hc

Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 20.27.29.pngWe have the answer from one of our followers:

 Councillors have granted full planning permission for 120 homes on the Beavers Rd ‘hop fields’ in Farnham – despite a dramatic £380,000 cut in Taylor Wimpey‘s infrastructure contributions for the long-mooted scheme. Full story in this Thursday’s Herald.

Waverley/Surrey Conservatives missed £380,000 from Developers on Hopfields!
Local Liberal Democrat Stewart Edge has slammed Waverley and Surrey Councils for giving up £380,000 of available infrastructure development money from the Hopfields development – leaving no contribution for additional primary school places required for children living there.
At the final Hopfields planning meeting, Stewart asked why the proposed ‘Section 106’ infrastructure contribution totalled only £534,152 when the total had been £894,518 at the meeting in 2015 when outline permission was granted.
The startling answer was that Waverley and Surrey’s Conservative Councils between them had failed to specify specific projects that the rules said were needed to claim the full amounts.
So they signed contracts which fixed the contributions demanded from the developers £380,000 lower than available – and in the final planning meeting said they could do nothing legally to increase these now.
What a disaster! £380,000 less for public services; £380,000 more for developer profits.

Green Oaks School closure prompts emergency Town Meeting tonight.

Featured

green_oaks_JH2There is outrage in Godalming today as local MP Jeremy Hunt (who once opened the Forest School at Green Oaks above*), now sends commiserations for its closureeven though no decision has been made!! Remember we are in the middle of a Surrey County Council consultation (or have you and your mate – and Godalming SCC Cllr Peter Martin already made all the decisions behind the scenes?)

Feelings can be summed up by this local resident’s post:

greenoaks_comment

One of the key questions of the meeting is whether a religious education is more important than having a school at all. The Diocese who run Green Oaks seem to be prepared to close the school rather than let a non Christian Academy take it over.
Jeremy Hunt put his support of the school closure down to “these difficult financial times” no doubt he’s referring to the  austerity measures created by the Conservatives? 

In the meantime local Councillors and parents have even taken the fight to the Department of Education no less, in a search for a Multi Academy Trust to take on the school. Impressive stuff:

29597274_171589723561899_3379145173406915516_n
One of those Councillors was new boy Paul Follows, who wrote an update here. Who will turn up at this meeting to face the parents? Lets hope they get some answers this time, although we aren’t holding our breath!

*so proud was our Jeremy he put the photo on his own website.

What will it take to persuade Waverley councillors they’ve got it wrong over the redevelopment​ of Farnham’s East Street?

Featured

Since the Waverley Web was founded we have watched the chequered story of the Redgrave Theatre – its closure and the controversy that has raged since the whole Brightwells site has become a town eyesore.

As the retail situation seems to be worsening (now Prezzo is going and probably others too) the prospect for new retail and new restaurants seems decidedly rocky. Who would invest in such ventures now?

How can Surrey County Council, which is cutting children’s services, restricting care for the elderly to only those in ‘acute need,’ as well as leaving some of our roads impassable, believe it wise to invest over £50 million of taxpayers monies in such a risky venture?  

Isn’t it time ‘Your Waverley’ re-thought its strategy and maybe ….finally…realise that the only draw that will bring in the public is based on a cultural experience.  A theatre and perhaps a three screen cinema with a shared auditorium would do the trick.

Most residents recognise that Julie Potts, the present leader was landed with a done-deal, and inherited a stack of past mistakes made by Chief Executives Christine Pointer and Mrs Mopp – (Mary Orton-Pett.) But surely there no good reason to keep piling mistake upon mistake? It’s never too late to learn, but it would take a brave man/woman to do a volte-face.

If not, we may just have to wait and vote the Waverley dinosaurs out when we can.Screen Shot 2018-04-08 at 18.41.35.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-08 at 18.56.17.png

There will shortly be a by-election in Farnham. 

While Farnham man rejoiced, Milford Man WAS BUSY TRYING TO SCUPPER THAT DAMNED PLAN!

Featured

While ‘Your Waverley’ held its breath, hoping and praying its Local Plan would pass the dreaded deadline for a Judicial Review – up popped not one, not even two but three challenges!

Nightmare on Waverley Street? Here’s  WW’s post – first with the news…again!

Here’s just one of them – Milford Man Tim House, who has 30 years experience ‘litigating and resolving complex disputes!’ Oh dear! Do we see even more of our money going down that great big legal drain?? Now a man familiar with resolving disputes is creating one! Because he doesn’t want homes built on Milford Golf Course in his back/front garden!

Well -we have heard from the NIMBY”S (Not in my backyard) and from the NIMFY’S (not in my front yard) and now from the bloody BANANA’S (BUILD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANYWHERE NEAR ANYONE.)

Screen Shot 2018-04-07 at 10.13.33.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-07 at 10.13.45.png

29791257_10156269867876613_4872417179271692288_n.jpg

‘Not in my backyard Britton’ tells the BBC the fight to stop development at Dunsfold isn’t over yet!

Featured

nightmareonwaverleystreet

Worth a listen here:
http://powcampaign.org/bbc-surrey-interview-chris-britton-pow

Just when you thought it was all over bar the shouting – now Waverley’s Local Plan could get Daft again!! Let the shouting begin?

Those scourge of developers – the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and Protect our little corner of Waverley (PoW) – have reared their ugly heads again and a Milford couple who don’t want to overlook 180 homes near a railway station at Milford Golf Course, – have joined in!

Whilst the rest of us were busy hunting Easter Eggs and tucking into roast lamb,  the indefatigable mob above were busy finessing their latest objections to development in Waverley by preparing legal challenges to halt the Local Plan.

The doors to developers open?

Just what is it that makes these people think their little corner of the country should be exempt from the need to build more housing countrywide? Seriously, folks, they need to pause, take a deep breath and accept defeat with grace before, in their desperation to stop the Local Plan (a blueprint for development for the next 15 years) in its tracks, they throw open the doors to the borough to each and every developer with an eye to the main chance! Those who won’t hesitate to take advantage of Waverley’s weakness if it doesn’t have a Local Plan in place to protect it!

There can be little doubt in anyone’s mind that whilst the primary aim of CPRE, PoW and Co, is to undermine the housing numbers set out in the Local Plan there is a sub-plot here to undermine the recent decision in respect of Dunsfold Park. No one is in any doubt that politics lay behind the decision by the Secretary of State to call in the Dunsfold Aerodrome application – after all, Mistress Milton was shouting from the roof-tops that she’d whipped Javid into doing her bidding – but, for once, it seems that Party Politics was placed above Local Politics. 

Moaning Milton-moans on…and on.. “I want a huge industrial estate at Dunsfold.”

Fortunately, SJ didn’t, ultimately, do what Moaning-Milton wanted. Instead he acted impartially, weighing the contradictory evidence submitted by the Dunsfold Developer and the Rule Six Parties (AKA PoW and the Parishes) and concluded in the memorable words of the Dunsfold Developer’s QC, Christopher Katkowski, that PoW and the Parishes were a bunch of ‘hypocrites’, who, when one got down to brass tacks, were objecting to the fact that those who would eventually live in the proposed new village would be living more sustainably than they themselves are living!

Seriously, folks, perverting the course of the Local Plan should be made a civil offence. Without going into all the gory details – yet again – there can be little doubt that its attempted persecution is maliciously motivated and if they succeed in finding a legal loophole in the Local Plan, once it’s been torn up and cast to the four winds, lets hope CPRE and PoW  ask the people of Cranleigh, Ewhurst and all the other villages in the East how they feel about their fields and gardens being built on?

‘Your Waverley’ is being dragged through the Courts, for the sin of obeying the Government’s ruling –  to build homes the country needs. If they don’t do it – then the Government will find someone who will!!

Meanwhile, those who can afford these vexatious challenges will be contemplating packing their suitcases and moving to greener pastures, because they can.

Whilst for those of us left behind the ordeal is far from over …

P.S

Councillor ‘By-Pass Brmley’Byham is helping out the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan. The village on the A281 has allocated sites on the Green Belt for building, but he is moaning to the locals that Waverley officers won’t let them. 

Bet we have a pretty good idea where that Green Belt site is! Bet Fred, it belongs to one of his mates  – like the last one he supported in his village!

What is it with the Sorry Advertiser and its vendetta against Dunsfold Aerodrome?

Featured

Firstly we apologise for the rotten picture quality – but the Sorry Advertiser has – rotten picture quality! 

Secondly, if Cranleigh with approximately 15,000 inhabitants and several thousand to come is a village,  how come Dunsfold with 1,800 homes producing possibly three or four thousand residents – is a town?

Thirdly: We don’t know the Flying Scotsman, and we doubt he reads our blog because he stubbornly refuses to respond to any of our requests for comments!! But, if we were he, we would stop buying the paper, just like most of the rest of Surrey. 

Last, but not least! It couldn’t have anything to do with one of Trinity Mirrors senior directors living on the perimeter of the aerodrome, could it?

Screen Shot 2018-04-04 at 17.38.06.png

P.S. Now legal challenges To Waverley’s Local Plan have been set in motion – perhaps it just won’t happen and the onward march of developers across the borough’s green fields will continue unabated. Perhaps Annie Milton will have her fervent wish granted? That the largest brownfield site in Waverley becomes the largest Industrial Estate in the borough?

Oh! and just as a little local joke. She has told her followers, who have told us. She wants to see Guildford’s brownfield sites built upon – particularly Wisley Airfield!!

Nightmare on Waverley Street?

Featured

The WW believes that the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England ( better known as – Build on Brownfield sites across Britain but not at Dunsfold Aerodrome!)  And, the Protect Our Waverley Group of NIMBY’s  (the build anywhere except at Dunsfold gang) have thrown a hand-grenade at Waverley’s Local Plan by seeking  Judicial Review/s  in the High Court!

and… you wouldn’t Adam and Eve it – but a Cranleigh and Shamley Green Councillor; Mike – known locally as, ‘Rubber’ Band, is Waverley’s representative on the  Surrey Hills Board which also includes representatives of the CPRE!

… and there could be more – including wealthy lawyer Tim House who doesn’t want 180 homes built at the bottom of his very large garden overlooking Milford Golf Course. Looks like a threesome! 

Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 05.36.20

Not exactly a good news week for Waverley Borough Council – and it isn’t an April Fool, or is it?

nightmareonwaverleystreet.jpgSo shell-shocked is the council, that senior officers and ‘the chosen few’  are scurrying around ‘YW’s’ corridors of power like demented gnats, according to our insider informants, some of whom were themselves involved in the preparation of the Local Plan. The rest of the ‘back bench’ councillors will no doubt, read about it here on the Waverley Web at the same time WBC issues a Press Release! 

Ah well! It’s an ill-wind that blows no good as they say at the Meteorological Office!  Developers will soon be crawling all over the borough dropping their surveyors down on ropes to hover over our green fields measuring them up for even more suits of houses made out of ticky tacky?

Another shedload of taxpayer’s money going into our everflowing drains?

Build on all brownfield sites across the country other than Dunsfold!

Former Godalming Town Mayor​ charged with sex offences.

Featured

The former Mayor of Godalming and a Conservative Waverley Borough Councillor for the town has been charged with a number of criminal offences of,  ‘a sexual nature,’ and appeared before Guildford Magistrates today. 

Mr Thornton of Abraham Way, who is a Godalming butcher, faces 23 charges, including one count each of rape of a girl under the age of 13 years, voyeurism, assault of a girl under the age of 13 and paying a girl for sexual services.

He also faces two counts of making indecent photographs of a  child, 11 counts of engaging in penetrative sexual activity with a girl aged between 13 and 15 and six counts of taking an indecent image of a child.

The case has been referred to the Crown Court for a hearing fixed for May 8.

Screen Shot 2018-04-02 at 22.28.11.png

Godalming Mayor Simon Thornton stepped down from the mayoral role, as well as relinquishing his roles as the Conservative Town and Waverley Borough councillor for Ockford & Eashing Ward in October 2017.

Mr Thornton, who became the town’s mayor in May 2017, cited personal reasons for his decision to resign. Both seats have now gone to Liberal Democrat Paul Follows following a by-election.

Mr Thornton was first elected to the town council in 2011 when he was also elected as a Waverley borough councillor.

As a Waverley councillor, he was a member of the powerful executive from 2014-2016 with portfolio responsibility for leisure, culture, parks and the countryside.

At an extraordinary meeting of Godalming Town Council shortly after Mr Thornton’s resignation members elected Holloway ward councillor Anne Bott as mayor for the rest of the year. Mrs Bott previously served as mayor in 2015. Her husband and fellow Holloway councillor, Steve Bott, will be her consort. Current deputy mayor Nick Williams will continue in his role.

 

Could ‘Your Waverley’ earn the title this year?

Featured

All of us here at the Waverley Web wonder if anyone, yes anyone, will be held responsible?

Based on ‘Your Waverley’s track record for concealing/covering up or ignoring its mistakes…. don’t hold your breath. Or on second thoughts if you live or shop here in Farnham, perhaps holding your breath could be a lifesaver!

Screen Shot 2018-01-16 at 17.59.41.png

29512160_10156228660656613_2072575016016281600_o.jpg

 

19477731_10155435962901613_1230744506605204699_o.jpg

This article is taken from our great local newspaper The Farnham Herald. 

 

A Guildford to Horsham railway line won’t​ re-open if Bramley residents have anything to do with it.

Featured

Now that The Rutland Group has been given the go-ahead to build 1,800 homes, (and another 800 in the Local Plan) at Dunsfold Aerodrome some of the Eastern villages are calling for the railway line to be re-opened.

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 21.10.52.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 21.11.05.pngGovernment plans could see the old Guildford to Horsham railway line reopened after a new transport strategy was announced recently.  

Following years of debate on whether the rail route should be revived, Transport Secretary  Chris Grayling’s latest scheme has paved the way for potential progress.  

Fresh proposals mean councils can now recommend that previously culled stations be brought back to life.

Mr Grayling said plans to expand the network were made in order to aid housing growth and produce more jobs across Britain. So he must mean the Guildford to Horsham line through Cranleigh?

NO SURPRISE – THERE THEN!

Presumably, Bramley residents whose homes back onto the route of the canal are happy to have their des res’s down by the riverside! But not on the other side of the tracks?

Here’s why Dunsfold Aerodrome was given lift-off​ by the Government!

Featured

Secretary of State for The Environment & Communities Sajid Javid has GRANTED Dunsfold Airport and the Rutland Group permission to build a new settlement.

Yesterday’s post-D-Day for Dunsfold! But don’t hold your breath!

The future of BAe’s former home is secure! Following years of controversy – numerous planning applications; two major planning appeals and two planning inquiries, costing the applicants and Waverley taxpayers many millions of pounds! 

However, it is Cranleigh New Town, that has now been dealt a double whammy!

Unprecedented Development within a once peaceful rural village – and now without!

dunsfold_granted

As for your contribution Captain SHunt to the huge delays and waste of the taxpayer’s money – you can console residents over here in Farnham by telling them it is NO COINCIDENCE that three major FARNHAM planning appeals were dismissed by Government Inspectors in the same week as the Dunsfold decision! 

 

Protect Our Waverley; MP’s Jeremy SHunt and Matron Anne Milton; may it forever be upon your heads for the part you played in the blow that you have dealt the village Waverley councillors have repeatedly described  as – “poor old Cranleigh.”
This is what your delaying tactics have contributed to! Cranleigh_banner2

Here are some of the reasons why The Secretary of State gave his consent to DP. 

The provision accords with the Local Plan which he said – is no longer out-of-date.

  • The borough’s housing situation has changed “massively.” 
  • Waverley must now take some of Woking’s unmet need!
  • The location, (airfield) can no longer be considered inherently unsuitable.
  • He supports the further development of 2,600 homes to relieve the pressure on the borough’s greenfield sites.
  • Dunsfold Aerodrome will be a “key contributor to Waverley’s housing need for affordable housing.”
  • Waverley’s affordable housing need is “ACUTE!”
  • New employment will be provided to an existing business park.
  • The Government believes the site “might” provide for 1,000 new jobs giving a huge economic benefit to the borough.
  • The Jigsaw School for the Autistic will be able to expand into new premises.
  • And.. a new 2 form primary school provided.
  • Traffic on the A281 will perform better when the optimum performance settings are operated on the traffic systems.
  • There will be no significant impact on the highway network from heavy vehicles.
  • No impact on the countryside due to the current use of the site as both a business park and an operational aerodrome. He said: ‘The sensitivity of the landscape character is not high, and “the intactness of the landscape was lost when the aerodrome was created and has little scenic quality.’
  • The small amount of ancient woodland to be sacrificed was of poor quality Sycamore trees, and the environment would benefit in the future.
  • There are practical solutions to ensure foul sewage and surface water drainage are dealt with appropriately.
  • There was no harm to the heritage assets.

This is a comprehensive defeat of the objectors! Who he said were “hypocritical”

This paragraph is taken from the Secretary of State’s Report.

Screen Shot 2018-03-29 at 20.15.00.png

There are a few  people who claimed Dunsfold would receive consent over their dead bodies! One is now spinning in their grave, others may soon follow! No names, no pack drill – as we say in the Army!

D-Day for Dunsfold! But don’t hold your breath!

Featured

Remember – You heard it here first!

dunsfold_granted.jpg

It’s only taken a mere 16 years for the Flying Scot to learn today that his ambitious plans to turn  Dunsfold Aerodrome into an eco-village fit for the 21st century, complete with 1800 homes, a primary school, GP surgery and all the essential elements required to support day-to-day living has – at very long last – been consented.  And, by no less a personage than Sajid Javid the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Some would argue that amidst the growing hullabaloo about a lack of affordable housing.  The Tories’ alleged commitment to riding roughshod over the concerns of NIMBY residents and Councils’ in their determination to show they care – really, REALLY care! – about the housing crisis, there was no way they could afford to turn this application down but, by God, they’ve had a bloody good try!

Mistress Anne Milton, MP for Guildford, has made no bones about her opposition to the scheme from the get-go and – despite her colleague Dominic Raab’s call for ‘more affordable homes’ to ‘restore the dream of homeownership.’ She openly boasted how she’d whipped S of S  Javid into calling in the planning application in the hope he would overturn Waverley Council’s decision in December 2016 to grant consent.

 Rumour has it, deep in the burrow of the Burys, that Council Leader, Julia Potts, was so incensed at Mistress Milton’s unwarranted interference, that the two fell out BIG time!

A week to the day  Jeremy Hunt, MP for South West Surrey was outed by The Sun as a budding buy-to-let property-mogul – with more than a casual interest in keeping would-be homeowners tied into the rental market. Now – Javid, it would seem, has finally grown a pair and told his erstwhile colleagues they not only need to toe the party line but be seen to toe the party line in their own constituencies!

But a word of caution to the Flying Scot before he starts doing the Highland Fling:

Perhaps he should ask himself will his joy be short-lived? Remember …back in December 2016, when Your Waverley granted consent and, only weeks later, defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory, when, at Annie’s and SHunt’s behest, (S of S) Javid ruled he would have the final say on Dunsfold Park’s future?

Waverley Web has no doubt as we write, Protect our little Corner of Awfold, Duncefold, Ker-Chingfold and Where-Has–All-the-Traffic-Combe-From is dusting off its begging bowls and door-stepping its supporters, asking them to dig deep – just one more time! WHY? To fund the final leg of its marathon act of NIMBYISM, to launch a Judicial Review of both the Dunsfold Park decision and the Local Plan!

Surely not, we hear you say! Why not?

 Because they can! 

With cheer-leader-in-chief’s  Mistress Milton’s backing, and a bit of behind the bikesheds manoeuvring from Jeremy Shunt-All-the-Houses elsewhere, these suburban terrorists – yes, we did say suburban!  This is Surrey, an extension of Greater London, not deepest-darkest-Dorset – have, for in excess of 10 long years, waged a very successful campaign to deny the children and grandchildren of their less-well-off neighbours any opportunity of getting a foothold on the property ladder within spitting distance of Awfold, Duncefold, Ker-Chingfold, etc and anywhere in between.

After all, it’s only 18 years since BAE Systems vacated Dunsfold Aerodrome … so what’s the hurry to make a decision about its future? We need to consult, consult, and CONSULT… with the dormouse (AKA Sarah Sullivan), the Bat (AKA Councillor Betty Ames), the Bullfrogs (AKA Councillor Betty Ames and the Leader of PoW, Bob Lees) not to mention Uncle Tom Cobbley (AKA Squire Orange) …  get the picture?

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, China plans to build 66 new airports in the next five years. And we wonder why we lost an Empire and are a declining world power … Go figure!

Isn’t it time PoW and the ilk stopped the monotonous moaning, got over themselves and embraced Sajid Javid’s decision and, in the words of the Beetles: [Just] let it be …

Let it be, let it be, let it be, yeah let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom
Let it be

Interesting in this Press Release to concentrate on the often overlooked employment aspects!

Screen Shot 2018-03-29 at 14.07.28.png

If, after this decision,​ Dunsfold Aerodrome isn’t passed – we want to know who is paying the Piper?

Featured

Here’s a decision announced today by the Secretary of State concerning development in the Green Belt in our neighbouring borough!

If Dunsfold Aerodrome – the largest brownfield site in Waverley isn’t given the go-ahead by the Secretary of State- it will be a travesty!

Because the man at the top has given the go-ahead to a large development in Effingham, (see below)  despite Guildford Borough Council’s refusal!

  • He admits it represents inappropriate development in the Greenbelt.
  • He admits the development will inevitably result in a very significant degree of reduction to its openness.
  • Admits it conflicts with the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan as the site is outside the settlement.
  • Admits it is on protected green space.

But, of course, as there is a substantial bung offered by developers for a new school to replace a Surrey County Council School which is deemed “not fit for purpose” – then it’s OK! Isn’t it?

NO WONDER SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL WANT TO CLOSE GREEN OAK PRIMARY SCHOOL IN GODALMING!! Let’s all help save Green Oak Primary School, in Godalming?

Perhaps the Government is just waiting for a developer to come along and build Surrey County Council another new school? Together with a few hundred houses?

Screen Shot 2018-03-28 at 17.09.36.png

Hell hath no fury like a Povey scorned!

Featured

There’s no doubt about it- Andrew Povey’s bid to dislodge the Hodge who believes he has a right to the throne has made him mad. In fact, he is madder than mad Jack, winner of last year’s Mr Mad man competition!

Screen Shot 2018-03-27 at 22.03.47.png

Has the East’s Surrey County Councillor been on the whacky baccy?

The Cranleigh & Ewhurst County Councillor failed miserably in his bid to oust the Leader of Surrey County Council from his head honcho role! He predicted David Hodge’s seven-year stint as the Tory leader of the council was over. He believed his fellow councillors needed some “fresh thinking” and some “new ideas” and he was THEIR MAN!

Sadly his colleagues appear to have disagreed with DR P – so his current bid to dislodge Hodge failed!

Watch out, Sir Percy!  The daggers are out and the Twit is now twittering.  He’s now blaming YOU for putting volunteers in to help keep the county’s libraries open!

Screen Shot 2018-03-27 at 21.49.53.png

 

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 22.25.49.png

The occasional politcal (sic) writer!

 

Let’s all help save Green Oak Primary School, in Godalming?

Featured

“Should Green Oak C of E Primary School and Nursery be closed?”

Because If it does, it will impact on every other school in Godalming.

DPP_SAH_sa180424_007JPG.jpg

Did you know you can organise a Parish referendum on an issue?
http://www.iniref.org/local-referendum.html

Well! The angry parents of Godalming have: Because they are absolutely determined that the honchos at Surrey County Council who believed they could just tick a box marked CONSULTATION and then close their school, have decided to fight for it to continue!
http://godalming-tc.gov.uk/notice-of-an-extraordinary-town-meeting/

Only five minutes after snatching former Tory-held Godalming Town and Borough Council seats at a recent By-Election, Lib Dem Councillor Paul Follows says:

“A significant lack of transparency, or opportunity to ask questions and debate the issue openly as part of the official consultation has generated a wonderful bit of local democracy in action today – to quote the press release:

Parishioners in Godalming are exercising their right in accordance with the Local Government Act 1972, Schedule 12, Part III to call an Extraordinary Town Meeting on Monday, 9 April 2018 at 7.30pm to be held at the Wilfrid Noyce Centre. The meeting has been called for the purpose of debating the following question: “Should Green Oak C of E Primary School and Nursery be closed?”
So that’s Monday 9th April at 7:30 pm! I will certainly be there.
This issue impacts many local schools as a consequence so I am personally expecting this to draw residents from across Godalming.”

You can read our last post here.

Surrey County Council’s sham consultation to close Godalming School.

Ranting about rates!

Featured

The great rates debate continues…

Many of our followers have been trying, without a great deal of success, to understand the Adult Social Care element included in their recently received council tax bills.

One man’s efforts and his response from Waverley Borough Council are included below, but we respectfully suggest that you walk over to the fridge and pour yourself a very large glass of Sauvignon Blanc or your favourite tipple. Because if you can understand the explanation then you are a better man than me, Gunga Din! 

Screen Shot 2018-03-23 at 15.07.55.png

Click on the link below for Waverley’s explanation when all will become clear…? 

Waverley Surrey Council Tax explanation 2018

Letter sent to Surrey County Councillor Wyatt Ramsdale

Sent: 22 March 2018 18:51
To: Wyatt Ramsdale CLR
Subject: Re: Council tax

Wyatt

I’ve attached a copy of a  letter I have received from Waverley.

Nowhere does it say on the face of the rate bill that the % shown for
Adult Social Care (ASC) is a percentage of last years total bill and that the
overall increase is 5.99%.

Everyone I have spoken to can’t work out how the increase in the ASC
is shown as 3% when it is obviously 64%.

In the world within which we, other Surrey and Waverley Coucil’s, live a % is assumed to relate to the corresponding figure on the same line from the
previous year, not another figure.

On a recent holiday, I was reading “The Hidden Reality” by Brian Greene
which discusses various theories of multiverses and importantly whether
the same physical and mathematical laws would apply to different ones.

I can only assume that somewhere on the flight I passed through some
sort of barrier into an alternative universe that employed a different
version of basic arithmetic.

It is clear that this presentation is to fool the casual ratepayer who doesn’t
check the maths that the Surrey % increase is 3%. A cheap sleight
of hand trick.

In two of the local authorities, I worked for I wrote the computer
programs for the production of rate bills and if I  had produced a table like
that on a rate bill the heads of Finance would have been horrified at my
lack of presentational ability.

  (we have redacted the name at the request of the resident)  

 

 

Hypocrite Hunt hoovers up homes in Hampshire!

Featured

WHILST HOME OWNERSHIP IN WAVERLEY IS JUST A PIPE DREAM FOR MANY, LOCAL MP, JEREMY HUNT, HOOVERS UP SEVEN (Yes! SEVEN!) APARTMENTS IN SOUTHAMPTON!

JeremyHunt_kingofbuytolet.jpg

Watch out Dunsfold!  I just may be one of the first in the queue of buy to let buyers.  

As Home and Communities Secretary Sajid Javid is poised to publish his decision on whether or not to endorse Waverley Council’s decision to build 1,800 new homes on Dunsfold Aerodrome, The Sun newspaper has shone its light on SW Surrey and Waverley MP, Jeremy Hunt’s bid to become a landlord.

Of course, if the decision goes against the Dunsfold scheme it will be proof indeed that it was not a planning decision but a political decision!

Because the man who joined fellow MP Anne Milton in urging Secretary of State Sajid Javid to call in Dunsfold, but unlike the Guildford & Waverley MP, hasn’t had the guts to admit it, has now acquired seven buy-to-let properties in Southampton just down the M3 from his constituency.

In 2009, Hunt-the-Shunt was openly hostile to the bid by the Rutland Group to build homes at Dunsfold Park and, along with fellow MP, Mistress Anne Milton, opposed development on the Aerodrome at a Public Inquiry. Seven years later with – the  Leadership of the Tory Party and, ultimately, the prize of Prime Minister, in his sights – his new career as a buy-to-let property-mogul could be a crowning glory as he opposes development in his own backyard but buys property in someone else’s. He has named his new property company after his home in Markwick Lane on the outskirts of Dunsfold! 

He doesn’t have any objection to building per se, you understand, … just not in his backyard!

So, having hidden behind Mistress Milton’s skirts and allowed her to take the flack for homes being built over the borough’s countryside rather than on its largest brownfield site, our budding property-mogul prepares to join other notable politicians in the buy-to-let game by hoovering up seven properties across the border in Southampton, Hampshire.

So, whilst his colleague, Dominic Raab, MP for Esher and Walton, is busy saying fixing Surrey’s ‘broken housing market’ is a ‘top priority’, The Sun has revealed that Hunt-the-Shunt is facing questions about his own growing property empire.  The average home in Surrey costs in excess of £500,000, a WHOPPING 14 times the average local salary! So hypocrite Hunt hovers over Hampshire to add to his constituency home in Markwick Lane, Dunsfold and his ultra-smart stucco-fronted central London pad.

This isn’t the first time Hunt has put his personal interests above those of the electorate. In April 2012, he was accused of a spot of perfectly legal but deliberate tax dodging after avoiding £100,000 in tax by completing a multi-million-pound property deal just weeks before the election. The then Culture Secretary was paid a dividend by the company he founded (Hotcourses) in the form of ownership of half the firm’s office building, offices then immediately leased back to Hotcourses for 10 years by Mr Hunt and his business partner, Mike Elms. Accountants said the deal allowed Hunt to legally reduce his tax bill by more than £100,000 because it was completed just days before the tax on dividends rose by 10%!

Earlier that same week, David Cameron, the then PM, had said he would not associate himself with anyone who carried out ‘aggressive tax avoidance’, whilst the then Chancellor, George Osborne, had previously said he was ‘shocked’ by the scale of tax avoidance by some of Britain’s wealthiest people! At the time, the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP was rumoured to be one of the wealthiest members of the Tory cabinet.

Talk about hypocrisy!

By paying themselves the building as a dividend before the change in the tax rules, Hunt and his partner saved themselves a total income tax bill of £202,000 on a £1.8million payment!

Hotcourses went on to pay Messrs Hunt and Elms £60,750 a year to rent the premises after the motley pair avoided 4% stamp duty on the property!

So it was a win, win, win for our local MP.

At a time when attaining a mortgage is increasingly unrealistic and high private rental levels make saving for a deposit more difficult, it is deeply disappointing, not to say disconcerting, to see our MP, a cabinet minister, contributing to the housing crisis by bulk-buying apartments. The average worker in Waverley would need a 211% pay increase to fund a mortgage; while our multi-millionaire  MP acquires seven properties in the blink of an eye!   

So, while our Jeremy has no compunction in objecting to housing development on his doorstep, a development that would prove a godsend to his hard-pressed constituents eager to get a foot on the ladder, he bags newly developed properties and helps fuel the housing crisis by buying up property on someone else’s! 

We know we say it a lot but, seriously folks, you couldn’t make it up … really you couldn’t!

Will Dunsfold Aerodrome become home to 6,000 – yes really, six thousand, new homes?

Featured

Cranleigh_banner2.jpg

That’s what the Chairman of Cranleigh Civic Society predicted when he urged its members to be vigilant and sign up to fight for Cranleigh through the organisation he now leads. 

Although the CCS chairman claimed that consent had already been granted for 1,800 homes  WW believes he meant that Waverley planners had granted consent.  A final decision by the Secretary of State for Communities is expected next week  29th March. The Local Plan includes a figure of 2,600.

Over here in Farnham, we learned from our Cranleigh followers that concern is growing for the new town that nestles in the Surrey Hills! So much so, that with 1,357  homes already consented,  there are fears that with many more to come, both there, and in the surrounding villages, the local infrastructure will not cope!

CRANLEIGH”S RECENT FLOOD FORUM NEWS.

MP Anne Milton and her Flood Forum team which including representatives from Thames Water, Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council responded to questions which had been sent to her in advance, including those from the Cranleigh Civic Society. She said she, and concerned villagers,  now wanted some answers.

She urged the public to look at Cranleigh Parish Council’s website for news. http://www.cranleighpc.org/_VirDir/CoreContents/News/Display.aspx?id=11210

Around 60 people, including a handful of borough/or parish councillors heard from the ‘experts’ of any progress made since the last meeting.

Present: The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP (Chair); Waverley Borough Council (WBC): William Gibb, Planning Enforcement; Nick Laker, Engineer; Beverley Bell, Clerk, Cranleigh Parish Council; Sarah Coleby, Office of Anne Milton MP; Nishad Sowky, Thames Water; Paul Hudson, Environment Agency (EA);  Tor Peebles, Surrey County Council (SCC); Parish Councillors –  Brian Freeston; Angela Richardson; and borough councillor Patricia Ellis.

MISCONNECTIONS TO THE MAINS

Nishad Sowky, Thames Water said this was an ongoing battle and his organisation relied heavily upon intelligence provided by the public.   A specialist engineer had been appointed and action planned. However, he stressed, TW couldn’t enforce any action required only Waverley Borough Council was permitted to do this. It was suggested homeowners should be required to provide evidence of approval if it was believed illegal connections had been made. 

It was revealed that Cranleigh’s foul sewer was inundated with surface water or ingress from groundwater.  With more housing, it was suggested that 12 times dry weather flow may be required, and a total upgrade was required to accommodate both current housing and the large-scale development now approved.

Database:

Cllr Townsend had previously requested a hotspot database be provided as she believed that residents local knowledge was crucial in identifying problems. These should be reported to the Parish Council, in addition to the relevant agencies, e.g. Thames Water/WBC’s Environmental Health/Environment Agency as appropriate.

Cranleigh Waters:  Thames Water confirmed that the wet weather flow is 10 times the dry weather flow – whereas tank capacity is 6 times dry weather flow.

PLANNING

Waverley planners reported that the Local Plan includes a general policy on avoiding pollution and included measures for mitigating flooding.  

It was stressed that flooding occurred less when the EA maintained the river, and that annual maintenance was vital.  The importance of Riparian owners honouring their responsibilities was stressed, but the EA should move any obstructions whenever a  specific flood risk existed.

Commenting on a decision made by Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee described as ‘awful’ by the CCS  for 55 homes on a flood plain in Elmbridge Road, where Thakeham Homes scheme for  55 homes was granted despite huge local opposition,  Tor Peebles (SCC) suggested that Waverley councillors who granted such schemes would benefit from improved knowledge of drainage issues! He believed councillors would benefit from extra training.

William Gibb, Planning Enforcement Waverley, suggested that some junior planning officers also lacked sufficient knowledge of drainage issues.

Mr Peebles also reiterated his claim that the National Standard for Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) were not fit for purpose and gave as an example of a development on the river Test in Hampshire, where (SUDS) provided for new properties had now flooded! After receiving his letter on SUDS standards, the MP said she would take his concerns to a Government Minister.

LOCAL ISSUES

Cranleigh Waters: Thames Water confirmed it had written to the owner of West Cranleigh Nurseries who, it is alleged, had illegally dredged the river. He said Waverley planners were aware of the breach and conditions would be imposed when its detailed planning application for the first phase of 265 homes was considered!

 Planning Applications: The Cranleigh Society remained concerned about developments granted planning permission with no apparent objection by the EA, SCC or Thames Water, particularly the Thakeham Homes development.

Residents said it was ‘a disgrace’ that planners and the EA preferred to accept a developers evidence over anecdotal and photographic evidence provided by residents.  Work was carried out by Adrian Clarke (Cranleigh Society) and Doug Hill (SCC) in 2015 to map the floodplain, including collecting and providing photographic evidence. They claimed this had not been properly considered and taken into account by SCC as the lead Flood Authority.

The MP said she would seek a meeting with Thakeham Homes and Cranleigh representatives. 

DRINKING WATER CONCERNS

Thames Water claimed blue asbestos found in Cranleigh’s pipes were not a danger to public health. as there was a very low concentration. However, 3.38 km of water pipes would be replaced. This includes Mapledrakes Road, Godalming Road; Satchel Court Road; Barhatch Lane, Sapte Close, and Cromwell Road.

It was pointed out to the TW representative that most of the roads mentioned weren’t actually in Cranleigh but in other towns and villages including Alfold, Godalming and Ewhurst! And… if only 3.8 km of pipework was being replaced… this was a very small proportion of the work required! 

The meeting heard that a response from The World Health Organisation through The Drinking Water Inspectorate (Sue Pennison) was still awaited. Residents commented that New Zealand and Australia were not waiting for the WHO’s decision,  but had begun a huge replacement programme! 

 

Is ‘Your Waverley’ going to ask us to name its future budget priorities?

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-02-11 at 22.16.20.png

It’s almost too small to spot, buried deep in the council’s financial pages, but are the gurus at Waverley Towers going to spend £20,000 on a – “Community Engagement Exercise to ask US to determine its future ‘budget priorities because it is running out of money?

Is this the latest cunning plan by our council to make us all believe it actually gives a damn what we think? Is it really asking us, the council taxpayers, how our money should be spent? Presumably, this exercise has been timed to neatly coincide with the parish and borough council elections to be held in May next year? 

Us cynical souls here at the Waverley Web can’t help wondering why a council that has ignored the views of local people for the past four years, has suddenly decided that the views of the voting fodder are suddenly important.

Perhaps, we should tell them to hang on to our money buy some premium bonds with the £20,000? Then we can tell them exactly what we want at the ballot box?

Sorry, this is so small!

But this ‘one-off’ community engagement exercise in 2018/19 – at a cost of £20,000 is to ‘engage with Waverley residents and the wider community to understand budget priorities.’

Screen Shot 2018-02-01 at 19.14.44.png

Bridge over troubled waters.

Featured

Love Your River! Village Hall meeting 26 March 7pm

Love Your River! Cranleigh Village Hall Meeting Monday 26th March 7 till 9 pm Can you spread the word about this important meeting please – Cranleigh.

 LOVE YOUR RIVER! Monday 26th March 7 – 9 pm Cranleigh village Hall RSVP emma.berry@surreywt.org.uk

JOIN US TO CELEBRATE THE PARTNERSHIP WORK TO IMPROVE CRANLEIGH WATERS Discover how … Continue reading Love Your River! Village Hall meeting 26 March 7pm

 

 

Another Waverley cover-up using smoke and mirrors?

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 00.18.48.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 00.19.06.png

Hi Waverley Web,

I don’t know if anyone really looks at their council tax bills, however, I was intrigued by how a mostly 3% increase in most charges apart from Police and Crime Commissioner‘s 5.3% could result in an overall 5.5% increase to our bills. Enter Excel Spreadsheet, plugging in last year’s figures and this year’s figures.

Guess what I found!

The Adult Social Care element hasn’t gone up by 3% but by 63%. Whilst a £66 increase is not a large amount I felt a bit miffed!

How can this be… a mistake someone pressed a 6 and a 3 by mistake…… Rang the council and they are sending out a letter to explain only to those that complain!! Got a fudged story about 2 elements to the charge and the 3% increase only refers to one of them…. Can’t be right, can it?????

Thought you might like to be in the loop!!

Kevin.

P.S. Sent the story to Eagle radio station, Farnham Herald and the BBC Surrey…. Transcript below:

“I don’t know if anyone is looking into this or even if its newsworthy, the new Council Tax Bills have landed indicating mostly a 3% increase across most categories. However, my Adult Social Care charge has supposedly risen by only 3% as well although its gone from £104.06 to £170.65 which I worked out to be a 63% increase.

Whilst this is not a large increase in monetary terms (in comparison to the rest of the bill), it will see an incremental increase year on year. If the charge has justifiably been increased by this amount then my issue with the bill is that they are not being honest in stating the true % increase!

Upon ringing to enquire they appear to be giving a very unsatisfactory answer saying the 3% is indicative of only 1 element in the additional charge and that letters are being sent out to those that complain/ask about the rise. Personally I think they’ve made a mistake and rather than admit it (having to re-do everyone’s Council Tax Bill) they are trying fudge the answer to circumvent the issue!

I would be grateful if you could investigate the matter and publicise it such that those responsible are held properly accountable to those paying the bill.”

WW: Properly accountable! You can not be serious? ‘Your Waverley’ be properly accountable?

Nelson will get his eye back first!

In memory of what might have been in Farnham?

Featured

Remember this Press Release?

THEN:

Press Release from Council Leader Julia Potts, 5th Sept 2016, celebrating works on the extension to Farnham’s Memorial Hall completing in September 2017!juliapotts_xmas

“The Memorial Hall is an incredible tribute to Farnham’s history and the council is committed to enhancing the space for all. The plaque commemorating those in the community who sacrificed their lives during the First World War has been safely removed and will be reinstated into the new (sic) refurbished hall when it reopens in September 2017.”

Now:

Waverley Press Release 14th March 2018 :
Delays to Memorial Hall opening

The opening of the Memorial Hall is to be delayed following recent weather conditions impacting on the project timetable.
The project was already behind schedule, due to difficulties in procuring the right materials for the build last year. Unfortunately, the council is now faced with considerable delays to the Farnham Memorial Hall refurbishment.
To fully understand what is required to finish the refurbishment the council commissioned an independent survey. The survey has highlighted that, due to the poor weather conditions, a considerable amount of remedial work is also required. This is in addition to the work required to complete the project.

Councillor Jenny Else, Portfolio Holder for Health, Wellbeing and Culture, said:

”I cannot express how disappointed and upset I am that the project is not only much further behind than we expected, but also requires a lot of additional work to rectify damage that has been caused by the weather. I am concerned that this is only going to worsen due to the heavy rainfall that has been forecast for the coming weeks.
“This will also come as a disappointment to the services and the people that will be based in the hall when it is finished. We have informed them of the situation and will continue to provide them with the support they need during this frustrating time.
“We are now considering how to move forward. Sadly we cannot give a revised estimate about when the hall will be open until our consultant and the contractors have identified what remedial work is required.”

screen-shot-2016-10-18-at-20-10-30

So tell us Aunty Elsie – who exactly has cocked this one up?

Have you donned your camouflage outfit in readiness to miss the flack flying?

Now here’s SCC’s answer​ to the county’s Surrey’s mounting pot-hole crisis!

Featured

Here’s what Surrey County Councillor Colin Kemp says:

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 20.41.05.png

Well! There you are then!  Surrey residents our expectations are just too high! Get it?

But it is spendingScreen Shot 2018-03-11 at 20.40.55.png:

 

image1

 

Instead of planting flowers in Surrey pot-hole ridden roads. A new sub-aqua club has been formed!

 

 

Surrey County Council’s sham consultation to close Godalming School.

Featured

Anxious parents and supporters lined up to demand answers about the future of Green Oaks School in Ockford Ridge, Godalming.

 Surrey County Council announced a consultation to close the school due to falling numbers, difficult Ofsteads and the inability to find an Academy to take it under its wing.

 

29196767_167455957308609_6680884511544180736_o

Anxious parents filled the hall to learn what the future holds for Godalming youngsters. 

“Plenty of questions – but no answers!”

Said, one observer: 

“I’ve been to a lot of public meetings over the years but tonight’s about the future of Green Oak school was by some distance the worst I’ve ever sat through. Shockingly poor performance by Surrey County Council and the Diocese of Guildford. Pretty much a total failure to answer any of the excellent questions from a  hall packed with anxious parents, teachers and well-wishers. It was quite obvious that this was a box-ticking exercise and that as Surrey has failed to find a suitable Academy, in just in 9 months time – (July)- Green Oaks will be forced to close! 

They had the brass-neck to stand up and assure parents that there were 100 places in local schools, whilst refusing to name a single one. They cited declining pupil numbers as a contributory factor, but failed to acknowledge that they themselves blocked the school from taking admissions last year.

This is looking at best like government policy designed to punish children or at worst a nasty cynical little stitch-up. Why weren’t the people who know what is going on present?  It was evident, within minutes, that their robots were malfunctioning and could answer next to nothing.”

 Waverley’s new Councillor Paul Follows – the school is in his ward, who was there to witness the proceedings, said:

“What we all faced was a wall. A wall of law, a wall put up by people not present at the meeting and most of all a wall of unanswered questions – which considering a similar meeting took place in Ripley last night and many people had sent questions in preparation, I found it both frustrating and utterly inexcusable.

Whatever your view on the potential closure of the school and it’s history, making the consultation real and based on transparency and facts is extremely important.  I intend to assist parents in getting a meeting with the Regional Education Commissioner so we can try to get some answers.”

County Councillor Penny Rivers (Lib Dem) reported the meeting on her blog here.

She said: “It was standing room only. Parents and teachers and members of the community asked questions of the SCC officers and the Diocesan representative. I think it would be fair to say that people did not think their questions were answered. But then these Officers were just doing their job while the decision makers, Council Leader, David Hodge, and the Bishop and the Regional Schools Commissioner must have had something better to do because they were absent!”

My question was, “This room is packed full of people who care about their children, this school and this community. But, the shame is the absence of those who make the decisions. Were they invited? Would they have come?” My question was not answered.”

The meeting was packed with local Conservative Councillors – but not a single one either spoke or asked a question. Shame on them! With both Milford and Loseley Field schools full, just where will these children go?

What can you do? Start by  signing this petition:

https://www.change.org/p/surrey-county-council-keep-green-oak-school-open

The official Surrey County Council consultation is here.

 

Virgin caring for Farnham…just! But… what do the changes mean for Cranleigh?

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.18.46

Virgin Care is to continue providing adult community services in one corner of Surrey after winning a contract extension.

Under the deal –  agreed recently – Virgin Care will continue to provide services to Surrey Heath Clinical Commissioning Group’s population, plus those living in and around Farnham for another year.

 

Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.29.31Q So where does this leave the new private nursing home proposed for Cranleigh?

    Q  And exactly who will have access to the community beds Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust has been promising the town for over 20 years?  

Virgin Care provided services to the whole of western Surrey until last April. At that point, CSH Surrey took on services in the North West Surrey Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area. From next month services in Guildford and Waverley will pass from Virgin Care to a consortium of the Royal Surrey County Hospital Foundation Trust and local GP’s.

Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.36.44.pngScreen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.37.24

So, £328,000 was extracted from our health economy because the powers that be couldn’t conduct its procurement process properly!

This left  Virgin Care covering just the 95,000 Surrey Heath population and the area around Farnham, a town of 40,000 people.

Governing body papers for North East Hampshire and Farnham CCG for January show local leaders had been concerned that the much-reduced contract would not be attractive for Virgin Care because of the loss of economies of scale and that the company might serve notice on the CCG.

But in a joint statement, Surrey Heath and North East Hampshire and Farnham CCGs said a £10.8m contract had been agreed with Virgin Care to continue for another year, based on the previous year’s spend but with a small uplift for inflation.

It said: “Both localities are fully developing plans for community services in light of the North East Hampshire and Farnham vanguard and Surrey Heath new model of care, and continue to do so within the Frimley integrated care system. Our intention is to ensure the market is engaged when appropriate as part of this process,” 

Ten of the Virgin Care-run inpatient beds at Farnham Community Hospital are used by patients from the Guildford and Waverley CCG area, including some requiring rehabilitation after stroke.

 So exactly where does this leave Cranleigh’s long-held hopes and dreams?… And why is the town, that raised millions of pounds for community beds,  still waiting for a planning application promised in 2017?

Has the East’s Surrey County Councillor been on the whacky baccy?

Featured

LET’S WASH THAT MAN RIGHT OUT OF OUR HAIR AND SEND HIM ON HIS WAY!

When the BBC lunchtime news featured a clip mistakenly labelling the Leader of Surrey County Council, David Lodge, instead of  David Hodge, did they mean to say … Dis-Lodge or maybe they meant Dis-Loyal?

Because, judging from Cranleigh & Ewhurst Surrey County Councillor Andrew Povey’s latest tweet his campaign to oust the Leader is gathering momentum and, as we all know, there’s nothing good ever come out of Momentum (AKA the really nasty arm of the Labour Left)!

First, that poseur Povey tweets that the man at the helm of good ship Surrey has fallen asleep at the wheel! Then he compares our very own Surrey County Council with the bankrupt builder Carillion! Next, he goes off on one advising voters to be wary of supporting Independent candidates, claiming they could be Marxists or a member of a far-right group!

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 22.24.00.png

Does Cranleigh & Ewhurst really back this disgraced politician’s putrid views or are local residents so lethargic and switched off they simply don’t care who represents them? More likely, they have very short memories and, if that’s the case, we, at the Waverley Web, are going to take them on a much-needed trip down memory lane!

Back in the day, way back when in the era that Cranleigh & Ewhurst residents have clearly forgotten (we’re talking about September 2011 in case you’re wondering), the then Leader of Surrey County Council Dr Andrew Poseur announced he was standing down from his position having just sacked his deputy leader, David Hodge. Dr Poseur claimed he was stepping down in October 2009 in order to ‘develop his business interests’ and in a typical self-congratulatory speech went on to eulogise about the Council’s achievements under his leadership: I am proud of what the council has achieved during my leadership and firmly believe the authority is well placed to become a truly world-class organisation. I believe the foundations we have set in the past two years mean the council can now go on to even greater things and whoever takes over as the leader can look forward to my support as they continue this work.’

Huh? Who was he trying to kid?

Eber Kington, Surrey County Councillor for Epsom and Ewell North said at the time, ‘Mr Povey did not step down but has been kicked out amid a continuing lack of confidence and disagreements with deputy leader, David Hodge. The idea that he’s taken this time to look after his business is nonsense – he’s been kicked out. More than half of the Conservatives told him to go and it’s not for the first time. There was a vote of no confidence a couple of months back. Povey has been responsible for some of the most damaging and unpopular decisions of the Conservative administration …’

Has there ever been a more damning indictment?

And now, six years on, Dr Poseur’s crawled is busy making trouble for the man who took over from him – so much for giving ‘whoever takes over as leader … gets my support’! The Waverley Web is no fan of David Hodge but the idea that Dr Poseur should be resurrected to dance on Hodge’s grave is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

We strongly recommend that the residents of Cranleigh & Ewhurst take a long, hard look at Dr Poseur’s record because no good whatsoever will come of their support – or for that matter their lethargy towards – this man who clearly has an axe to grind when it comes to David Hodge.

Our advice to Mistress Milton is that she steps in before Dr Andrew Poseur brings the local Tory party into even more disrepute than it is currently enjoying. Trouble is, the Tory Party doesn’t like to wash its dirty linen in public which means they leave it in the bottom of the laundry basket where it festers and – eventually – manages to walk out by itself!

So there you have it, Annie, you need to take a leaf out of Mary Martin’s book and WASH THAT MAN RIGHT OUT OF YOUR HAIR! For all of our sakes, Anne you need to open your mouth and sing at the top of your voice:

I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
And send him on his way.

I’m gonna wave that man right outa my arms,
I’m gonna wave that man right outa my arms,
I’m gonna wave that man right outa my arms,
And send him on his way.

Don’t try to patch it up
Tear it up, tear it up!
Wash him out, dry him out,
Push him out, fly him out,
Cancel him and let him go!
Yea, sister!

I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
And send him on his way.

You can’t light a fire when the woods are wet,
No!
You can’t make a butterfly strong,
Hmm, hmm!
You can’t fix an egg when it ain’t quite good,
And you can’t fix a man when he’s wrong!
You can’t put back a petal when it falls from a flower,
Or sweeten up a fellow when he starts turnin’ sour
Oh no! Oh no!

If his eyes get dull and fishy,
When you look for glints and gleams,
Waste no time,
Make a switch,
Drop him in the nearest ditch!
Rub him out of the roll call,
And drum him out of your dreams
Oho! Oho!

I went to wash that man right outa my hair,
I went to wash that man right outa my hair,
I went to wash that man right outa my hair,
And sent him on his way.

She went to wash that man right outa our hair,
She went to wash that man right outa our hair,
She went to wash that man right outa our hair,
And send him on his way!

 

The Waverley Web puts up the WANTED sign and guess what? Up pops a Povey on the BBC!

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 22.27.28

Just a little conundrum on the council tax front – over to you Mr Controller?

Featured

What exactly is the true percentage increase we are all paying in council tax this year?

 

 

A little missive we have received from one of our followers – 

Dear Waverley Web,

I received my 2018/19 Council Tax Bill in the post today.

My bill indicated a total increase of 5.5% over last year, which didn’t make much sense because the various sub-components had only gone up by 3.0% to 5.3%, so how could the total be 5.5% higher?

So I got my calculator out along with last year’s bill and started checking it.

  • The first mistake was the Surrey County Council bit (excluding Adult social care), which I was told had gone up 3.0% from last year to £2181.50 this year (I’m band G in Farnham). Last year I paid SCC £2115.19, so the actual increase works out at 3.1% However, this error didn’t explain why my total bill was up 5.5%.
  • Second error – Surrey Adult Social Care, which I was told had also gone up 3.0%, last year I paid £104.06, this year I’ve been billed £170.65. This works out as an annual increase of 64%, not 3.0%!

Currently, I’m unsure as to whether the percentage increases are correct and the amount(s) wrong, or whether the amount(s) are correct in which case the percentage increases are wrong. I will contact Waverley’s Council Tax Team next week, to seek clarification on my personal bill (ie as to whether my Adult social care bill should be £170.65 or 103% or £104.06 ie £107.18), but I do wonder if there is a wider issue here?

Am I alone in receiving a Council Tax Demand that contains errors, or have other (even all) residents of Waverley received Council Tax Bills containing similar errors?

If the error in my bill has been repeated across Waverley – then Waverley may have to reissue all of its council tax bills!  However, they may need to go further and explain why they are misleading their residents over the real magnitude of this year’s increases! 64% is a huge increase, especially in these times of low wage rises. Maybe a 64% increase is justified (even I’m aware of the funding pressures on adult social care), if so then Waverley/Surrey should be honest about the real increase and provide the justification for that increase to its residents, rather than pretending that the increase is only 3.0%

Over to you (whoever you are)!
Mark

Thank you, Mark, for contacting the Waverley Web. We would like to ask Waverley Borough and Surrey County Councils to explain the rationale behind the questions that you pose, however, this is impossible as the Waverley Web is blocked from entering the council’s computer system! Can’t think why! However, we will forward your letter to a couple of councillors in the hope that we may get a sensible explanation.
It is widely known said that Waverley is not good at presenting anything numerical, as no one there can count! it mainly relies upon unidentified ‘experts’ and hopeful assumptions, irrespective of common sense or the law. It appears that they are long past the point of caring what people think.

More to follow.

Kind Regards, The team at Waverley Web.

Just in case you try to access the police website – s is what you get: You couldn’t make it up!tScreen Shot 2018-03-12 at 18.54.37.png

Will a new car park and increased charges put even more pressure on Cranleigh’s residential​ roads?

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-02-09 at 13.23.20.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 10.26.11

Charges for the Snoxhall Playing Fields Car Park are expected to generate around £60,000 a year of much-needed cash for Cranleigh Parish Council.

Administering and  providing warden services, for the car park, which was previously free, will also generate around  £15,000 income for ‘Your Waverley.”

At the same time, the council is considering ways of preventing unsocial parking around the borough’s towns and villages by introducing or extending double yellow lines! It also intends adding more parking restrictions right across the borough of Waverley.

Does this mean that even more residential roads in and around the borough will be liberally peppered with cars?

Residents have been asked to respond to Waverley’s new parking review.

17.12.01 – Snoxhall may be avoided if charging plan persists copy

Let us hope some of those complaints are against By-Pass Byham, Peter Isherwood, ​and Carole Cockburn?

Featured

 

Formal investigations have been launched against 14 Waverley Borough Councillors – and the list is growing by the day!

The council’s monitoring officer Herr Taylor has been investigating complaints, ‘we have ways and means of making you talk,’ the council’s standards panel heard recently. Some are still being investigated, including those against borough and parish councillors

Some have been accused of not disclosure of pecuniary interests which mean they were not in a position to make unbiased decisions!

However, the most common allegation levelled against Waverley councillors is their failure to “treat others with respect,” with the majority of complaints coming from one councillor against another, either verbally or in e-mails, or comments posted online. No prizes offered by the Waverley Web for guessing who this is?

Mr Taylor said, “electronic communications can be treated, and widely transmitted in just a few moments and then read and shared with an audience the original author may not have intended. This combined with the absence of tone of voice and context makes electronic communications far more likely to lead to complaints, than any other form, especially when sent in haste.”

Independent Investigators – are currently looking into three of the most severe allegations.

The Chairman of the Standards Board,  Councillor Michael Goodridge, who prides himself on never having to stand in an election in his Wonersh ward, and regularly falls asleep during council meetings, doesn’t believe there is a problem at ‘Your Waverley.’ Surprise, surprise!

animated-spider-image-0201

But then he can always be relied upon to sweep almost every Waverley wrongdoing under      Waverley Tower’s carpets!  

Our spiders are finding it difficult to find enough space to breathe under them, let alone procreate and increase our little band of arachnids. 

Our Annie wades in to put a bridge over Cranleigh’s troubled waters!

Featured

It’s no news to anyone in the borough of Waverley that the East of the borough is getting more than its fair share of development,  some of which is to be built on flood plains! In addition, Cranleigh and the surrounding villages regularly flood and burst water pipes are commonplace, whatever the weather!

So Cranleigh’s very own watchdog is wagging its tail on behalf the townsfolk and is calling in the A-Team – non-other than Mistress  Anne Milton, who we all know, is not adverse to putting her whip across the backs of those in high places. Perhaps, she can get some sense of Thames Water and the Environment Agency! Cranleigh people live in hope!

 

Screen Shot 2018-03-08 at 09.48.39.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-08 at 09.48.09.pngScreen Shot 2018-03-08 at 09.47.58.png

THERE’S NO CIL BILL!

Featured

Godalming - River Wey under Bridge Street

 

It’s all water under Godalming Town’s bridge – but there will be no infrastructure monies to help alleviate flooding

 

There is no hope – there is no CIL.

The Cranleigh Civic Society’s concerns which the Waverley Web highlighted yesterday are being shared by other parts of the borough – including Godalming.

A bitter pill to swallow over CIL?

Godalming Town Council admits the same dilemma. It will meet its housing target before September 2018 so there will be no Community Infrastructure Levy to spend.

Here’s an extract from a recent Godalming Town Council minutes!

Screen Shot 2018-03-06 at 13.02.58.png

 

A bitter pill to​ swallow over CIL?

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-03-05 at 16.54.34.png

A brilliant article from The Cranleigh Civic Society  poses some interesting questions for ‘Your Waverley.’

Upon some of which, we have commented.

Cranleigh Civic Society (CCS) received a grumbling letter; a grumbling letter. You know the type, it was probably signed ‘Disgusted of Dunsfold’ and it went something like this:

Let’s talk about Community Infrastructure Levy now, at last, we have a LOCAL PLAN, but what does this mean?

An agreed LOCAL PLAN gives our planners at Waverley Borough Council the power to control future housing development; they can plan for the development of new infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, hospitals etc and, very importantly, it enables the Borough Council to charge house builders a COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY, known as CIL for short.

What is CIL?

CIL raises monies towards the cost of the new Infrastructure needed for the developments to go ahead. What a wonderful step forward we all exclaim!! And so it is. But what of the housing already approved? approaching 2000 houses throughout the Borough. Well, unfortunately:

CIL is not retrospective.

How much will Waverley charge?

So as the consultation period is still running, there is no CIL Schedule!

According to WBC’s website, Waverley’s draft proposal sets a CIL rate of £395/ Sq Metre of floor area for all new housing, (about £40,000 on an average 3-bed house), except, quite reasonably, for ‘Affordable Housing’ where there is no charge. So, taking the 35% of Affordable Housing the Borough is committed to build away from the approximately 2,000 houses so far approved, there will be a loss of CIL to the tune of at least £60 MILLION pounds! £60 MILLION pounds that will NOT be available to improve our ROADS, our SCHOOLS, our HOSPITALS, our BOROUGH!!

How could this have happened we may ask?

WW It happened because our planning officers at Waverley, under the direction of the Infamous Mrs MOP, Richard Shut-the-Gates and Robert Knowless, failed to come up with a plan that satisfied the Government’s criteria for a LOCAL PLAN.

How a Local Plan is developed by the Borough Planners

The basic criteria affecting local residents, as council tax payers, was to identify suitable sites for new housing. This has to satisfy central Government’s housing policy, a requirement that was for about 350 houses a year until 2032. Woking BC has had an agreed Local Plan for some years but that has now proved inadequate, so the inspector added a further 150 or so houses per year to WBC’s Local Plan to cover Woking’s shortfall! So WBC’s annual requirement rose to 509 houses until 2032 (a total of 7,126 houses) 35% of which must be ‘Affordable’. Plus a further rise to 590 was deemed necessary by the inspector when we last looked.

WW. What about local democracy … hell, what about democracy full-stop?

Of these 7,126 houses, a minimum of 4,300, rising to perhaps 5,000, are planned for CRANLEIGH and DUNSFOLD PARK, with the balance spread around the rest of the Borough; We have to ask – just how democratic is that?

Improvements to our Local Roads and Rail?

Perhaps we could have a new road to rescue us from the A281 blight? Unfortunately not! There will, however, be a new roundabout at Shalford, just 100 or so metres from the existing roundabout, which feels as if it will bring the traffic to a complete standstill; and the Elmbridge Road and Bramley crossroads junctions will be reconfigured, so that’s a relief!!! There will also be a new canal bridge at Elmbridge but no new bridge over the old Railway.

What of the Railway?

No plans whatsoever have been considered since SCC’s last feasibility study found not enough demand and that it wasn’t affordable.

What of DUNSFOLD AERODROME?

WW: There is a plan for 1,800 or so houses plus workspace, shops, a school, a medical centre, etc, which is languishing on the Secretary of State’s desk, awaiting Government approval or – as POW & the Rt Hon Mistress Milton sincerely hope and pray (after all, they’ve both lobbied hard enough!) dismissal. Oh, and in the future, if the Secretary of State doesn’t doff his cap and genuflect to POW and Mistress Milton there’s the prospect of an increase to 2,600 houses!

However, it seems that the developers have convinced the powers that be at Waverley that the development of Dunsfold would be jeopardised by the imposition of CIL on the whole development, so there will be NO CIL on the entire development – thereby saving the developers up to £100 MILLION over the life of the development – so that’s ok then.

So let’s hope the plan goes ahead fully and that our Planners use all their discretion to put right the wrongs – spreading the housing out more fairly – hunting for better sites…… they can – but will they?

WW. Says:

In the interest of accuracy – the WW does not want the Flying Scot coming after us with his sgian dubh (that’s dagger to us Sassenachs!), it is prudent of us to point out that under Dunsfold Park’s 106 contributions it will provide in excess of £50 MILLION towards highway improvements, school provision and improved leisure facilities in Cranleigh and other infrastructure improvements including a bus service – the first of its kind in the country, in perpetuity! Not to mention the obvious, affordable housing within the development.

Alfold Parish Council – which has opposed development – opposed pretty much everything – that has been proposed at Dunsfold Park also has the bare-faced cheek to be seeking £10 MILLION from the Dunsfold developers for infrastructure improvements. You couldn’t make it up, really, you couldn’t. No doubt the rest of the anti-Dunsfold Parish Councils will be lining up to follow suit but they’d best get their skates on as it’s now less than a month to go before the Secretary of State is due to deliver his decision on 31 March. The only question left is will he or won’t he bend to Mistress Milton and POW’s will? If he does both he and the Government’s housing policy will be a laughing-stock … but, never mind, Mistress Milton and POW will have had the last laugh and we’ll all know what we’ve long suspected: that he who pays the piper calls the tune!

And.. dare we mentioned it?

NO DUNSFOLD = A LOCAL PLAN WITH A BIG BROWN HOLE IN IT which =   A BIG GREEN HOLE IN THE BOROUGH’S COUNTRYSIDE!

Surrey Police has confirmed that, so far, no arrests have been made at ‘Your Waverley.’

Featured

 

Screen Shot 2018-02-27 at 10.03.09.pngwaverleyairquality

Waverley Borough Council referred itself to the police over erroneous air quality data two weeks ago so this will be the second criminal investigation to be undertaken in the country into the publication of erroneous air quality data by a local council.

WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL INVESTIGATED BY POLICE!

Waverley Borough Council referred itself to Surrey Police over its annual status report for 2016, which was withdrawn in October.
The news comes five months after Cheshire Police launched an investigation to probe Cheshire East Council’s flawed nitrogen dioxide (NO2) data.

Last August, Cheshire East Council reviewed hundreds of planning decisions to ensure that none had been impacted by the incorrect data and it likely that Waverley Council will have to do the same. More taxpayer’s money down the drain?

The issue prompted a legal challenge, subsequently dismissed at the High Court, from a developer to the Cheshire Council’s local plan, which was adopted in July.

Waverley’s referral became public on 19 February. Surrey Police has confirmed that it has made no arrests so far and is establishing if any criminal offences have taken place.
Waverley Council says it will make no further comment while the inquiry progresses.

The Leader of the council has announced that it has now signed contracts with developer Crest Nicholson to begin the controversial East Street development in Farnham – the town that is the subject of the police investigation. Trees have now been cut down along the A31 in readiness for a construction bridge, to access the site and traffic queues have stretched as far as the eye can see – causing yes, you guessed – more air pollution!

Build on all brownfield sites across the country other than ​Dunsfold!

Featured

The (Local CPRE has repeatedly said it is against ANY development at Dunsfold Aerodrome. 

However, here is its latest country-wide view on where homes should be built first!

 

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 10.20.52.pngScreen Shot 2018-02-15 at 10.21.13.png

Reply-To: CPRE Campaigns <campaigns@cpre.org.uk>All