A Tory rant has upset ‘Your Waverley’s residents.


Right here – right now – the residents of Waverley are grappling with failing businesses, COVID or post COVID, hanging onto their jobs and homeschooling their children.

There are others, with nothing better to do than criticise what people wear, and what their background is when they are on Zoom.


Dear Councillor Follows,

Here are our WW guys views on your attire for the recent Full Council meeting of Waverley Borough Council.

  • If you were wearing jogging bottoms or were sitting in your underpants – we don’t give a damned. We are far more concerned about what you say – and how you represent our views.
  • We think your sartorial elegance was exemplary – you didn’t need a tie.
  • After 9 hours on Zoom – because we presume like us, you have a day job too – we are amazed you can even see straight. Our eyes are bloodshot and look like road maps. Our ears are ringing like the bells of St Clements – and our brains are turning to mush.
  • As for the disgraceful remarks from a former council leader about officers’ children daring to rear their nasty little voices in the background during your hallowed meetings. What exactly are your staff supposed to do? Put their children into care during COVID?
  • We will not comment on the “unmade bed bit’ for a councillor who we presume has to use his bedroom for Zoom calls rather than his study! Surely everyone has a separate study these days don’t they. Perish the thought that they are deprived!
  • Except to say:

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought to be a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.”

You can watch it here: No room for Zoom. A Waverley spat but not as bad as Handforth.

Taken from Cllr Follows Facebook Page

That we still have a councillor using their speaking time to comment that they don’t think someone has dressed appropriately in 2021 is a disgrace.

Can I ask, are residents alright that after 9 hours on zoom today I am not wearing a tie to this council meeting this evening?

PS: below is me dressing offensively to some conservative councillors tonight. You would think they would like blue?

Has a Cranleigh Charity’s planning battle entered the realms of farce?


Waverley Planners were reluctantly called to yet another meeting on Wednesday to REFUSE a planning application from the Cranleigh Village Health Trust.

ACT ONE – To defer or not to defer? That was the first question?


There was a feeling of de-ja-vu for planners as they considered another revised scheme from a beleaguered charity that refuses to take No for an answer, regardless of how many times it is refused, or costs to the charity or the taxpayer.

A controversial scheme for a private nursing home that some councillors claimed could become a Big White Elephant in an Area designated as an Area of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI). The site known as The Paddock Field valued at £250,000 was sold by the parish council for £1 – in a land swap agreed over two decades ago for a Hospital/Day Hospital and Health Centre.

After 20 years, it has morphed into a 64-bed Private Care Home – a residential block of flats for key workers, and 16 community beds. Beds, which officers stressed, were NO longer free at the point of delivery and had no health or local authority backing.

 The Waverley Web has lost count of where the latest scheme ranks in the pecking order of the former HOSPITAL Trust that changed its name to  HEALTH Trust.

Plan A for a hospital was granted as an ‘exception’ and permission lapsed. Plan B was dumped for Plan C, and then Plan D and then E. Now after a string of refusals, a cancelled appeal, deferrals, and re-designs it was back on the table again this week for yet another lambasting from councillors across Waverley’s eastern region.

 Planning officer Kate Edwards – said the applicant wanted to defer the scheme for yet further negotiations with the county council, which had withdrawn its support, contradicted statements made previously.   Mrs Edwards said it had also argued that…

... the statements I have made in the report before you are prejudicial.

In the ongoing blame game – It had also complained that the council had not allowed it to work up a legal agreement for various ways the community beds could be used and funded. This was, said Mrs Edwards, not the council’s practise and was not prudent when officers recommended refusal.

Any community benefit in the previous refusal was now further reduced – as Surrey County Council and its partners The Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) had withdrawn support and now intended using an entirely different model of care in patient’s homes.

Godalming Cllr Steve Cosser was”sympathetic” to the Trust’s difficulties and supported deferral. This was promptly refused by the committee, believing any further delays of the long-running saga should be resisted.  Cllr George Wilson reckoned Cranleigh people had waited long enough as the scheme had been hanging around for “such a long time, we should get on with it.” 

Full marks to Officer Edwards, who despite the noises off, forged ahead undeterred and composed, with her presentation, and reasons for the recommendation. 

There was a total of 465 objections, 39 added in the past few days, and 240 in support. The Applicant had claimed letters had been duplicated – so after further analysis, letters in support had been reduced!

She described the proposed two and three-storey care home and accommodation block buildings as very large, and very close to the Downs Link footpath.

Rowena Tyler spoke against the scheme on behalf of Cranleigh Parish Council, also an adjacent landowner. Whilst it had long supported the creation of a new hospital/day hospital and GP led Health Centre, a use which had been “exceptional” and backed by the public, this was no longer the case and there was now NO community benefit.   The land had been designated an ASVI in Waverley’s Local Plan, and there were restrictive planning policies against it.  Health and Social care supporters had all withdrawn.

“This scheme is for two very large buildings on a green field outside the settlement of Cranleigh, for beds, that the authorities say they no longer need or want and backed by an anonymous benefactor of whom we have no details. There is no CIL -( funding for infrastructure) and therefore no benefit to the Cranleigh community, and we strongly object.

Andy Webb spoke up for the Campaign Group that had, over time, generated petitions with more than 5,000 signatures opposing the development and calling for the land to be returned to village leaders. There would be a detrimental effect on residents of Wiskar Drive, increased hazards at the Junction of Knowle Lane and High Street, in an area that floods.

With no support from the ITC, SCC or the Cranleigh GP practice, “which isn’t what you would expect.” The community beds were no longer free or needed. There were numerous nursing homes within a three-mile radius and many more beyond.

He said: “The people of Cranleigh don’t want a great big Monolith that will become a white elephant in the years to come.

 Arguing for the applicant John Sneddon maintained there were numerous community benefits and every effort had been made to overcome previous objections. The size of the buildings had been reduced and open space increased. The development would be a huge community benefit housing older people while satisfying the CVHT’s charitable objectives.

“How can the health authorities say one thing in 2019 and change their minds in 2020?”


Cllr Liz Townsend centred her opposition on the numerous “unidentifiable benefits” of a scheme, that had no support from health and social care experts, and had no named nursing home operator. As for providing 14 affordable homes; 1,600 homes had already been granted in Cranleigh – 480 of which were affordable, many within walking distance.

She rejected the applicant’s claims that there been a small number of vocal objectors saying, this is just not accurate.

It was quite simply the landscape for health care had changed. It’s tough for the charity, but it has not kept the community which had contributed £2m on board. It had continually refused to meet residents and the attempts by the parish council had also failed.

“CVHT has simply closed its ears to the voices of the public, and should be refused for all the reasons stated by our officers.”

Alfold’s Cllr Kevin Deanus – said the scheme breached eight of the council’s planning policies,  asking everyone to visualise the huge sizes of the buildings.

One almost 200ft (60m) long and the accommodation block – 122ft long and 66ft wide – in the middle of an Area of Strategic Visual Importance! 

The impact will be huge – this is not what Cranleigh is about – this is horrendous!

” I can’t see any benefits from this development whatsoever“, said Godalming’s Cllr Paul Follows, and criticised the charity’s tenuous efforts to provide residential development in the grounds of a private nursing home. He put great weight upon the objectors and parish council’s comments. “The list is endless.” He said the reasons for a virtual meeting called by Cranleigh Cllr Patricia Ellis would require further investigation.

Cllr Steve Cosser said there was a ‘very angry mood in Cranleigh.’ However, the ICP had not proved very helpful and should have provided a written statement. (Its statement is included in the officer’s report below!)

However, there was one champion for the scheme.- The lone voice of Cllr Ellis, who used her council prerogative to prevent an officers refusal under delegated powers, was fully in support.  Although much was centred around the old cottage hospital, and previous attempts to build a hospital. She believed having a private care home plus 16 community beds would be an asset.

But it was Cllr George Wilson that once again raised the spectre of the elephant in the room. Claiming the withdrawal of support, from the public, private and health authorities could result in a white elephant when SCC had left a former residential care home to rot.

With numerous care homes in Cranleigh and a different model of future care proposed, Cranleigh Cllr Ruth Reed said Cranleigh’s last central green lung should remain.

The application was refused by  11 votes with one in support and one abstention.

WA/2020/0965 – Erection of a building to provide a 64 Bed Care home including 16 Community Beds together with a building to provide 14 Health Workers accommodation units with access from Knowle Lane, associated parking and ancillary work (revision of WA/2018/1966 and as amplified by letters received 14/12/2020 and 15/12/2020). at Land South Of John Wiskar Drive On East Side Of Knowle Lane, Cranleigh

Officers’ Report

It is acknowledged the scheme would bring some public benefits, in the form of care home provision, housing provision with an affordable element for key workers and 16 care home beds which would be let at a lower rate for selected residents of the Cranleigh area. Page 27 Agenda Item 8.2 The scale of the public benefits proposed, however, would be lessened from the previously refused care home scheme, where there was an identified need for public beds and informal partnership with the Integrated Care Partnership (ICP). The public benefit would also be substantially reduced from that which would have been provided by the previously consented Village Hospital and Health Centre scheme, which would have provided essential infrastructure of significant benefit to a large number of people. It is not considered, overall, that the public benefits of the scheme would outweigh the substantial resultant harm to the ASVI and the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. On this basis, it is recommended that permission be refused. 

. Planning Policy Constraints ASVI (Area of Strategic Visual Importance) Long Distance Footpath (Downs Link) Countryside Beyond Green Belt (outside any defined settlement) Bridleway Within 20 metres of River Bank Flood Zones 2 and 3

Integrated Care Partnership

Continues to object to the proposal in response to the amended information with regards to how community Page 36 beds would be provided. – The ICP has withdrawn their support for the uptake of the community beds and they would not provide a significant community benefit which is such as to outweigh the harm to the ASVI. – The terms of the legal agreement as to how the beds would be allocated has not been shared with the PC. – No infrastructure contributions provided. – The terms of the community benefit could be varied and removed by the applicant. – There would be a negative impact on residents of John Wiskar Drive. – Flood risk, noise and disturbance and highway safety concern

Cranleigh Parish Council

Continues to object to the proposal in response to the amended information with regards to how community Page 36 beds would be provided. – The ICP has withdrawn their support for the uptake of the community beds and they would not provide a significant community benefit which is such as to outweigh the harm to the ASVI. – The terms of the legal agreement as to how the beds would be allocated has not been shared with the PC. – No infrastructure contributions provided. – The terms of the community benefit could be varied and removed by the applicant. – There would be a negative impact on residents of John Wiskar Drive. – Flood risk, noise and disturbance and highway safety concerns. As the owner of adjacent land and beneficiary of a restrictive covenant, concerns expressed in relation to impact on the ASVI, offsite cumulative flooding impact, cumulative transport impact and environmental pollution (e.g. noise, light and smell pollution).

Surrey County Council (SCC) has confirmed that it would no longer be able to commit to block booking beds due to the Discharge to Access scheme. SCC has confirmed that the beds would not be free at the point of access. The Parish Council can no longer support the proposal.  The accommodation block would not be linked to the care home only (ancillary) and on this basis cannot be supported.


Thames Water

  The inability of the existing water infrastructure to meet the needs of the development has been identified and a condition is therefore recommended to ensure this is addressed. – Drains passing through the site – these cannot be built over – I


The Difference in the previous proposals.

The primary differences between the current proposal and that application are; – The quantum of development has been reduced by 1439m2, including a reduction in the footprint of the proposal by 856m2. – The previous application proposed an 80- bed care home with a provision of 20 community beds and 26 health care worker rooms. The current application proposes a 64-bed care home with 16 community beds and 14 key worker accommodation units. – The key workers’ accommodation block is now proposed to be positioned in the northern part of the site rather than the southern part. – The parking is now proposed centrally, unlike the previous proposal where it was divided into that serving the care home and the accommodation block. – The health care worker accommodation previously proposed was not self-contained, with single bedrooms and communal cooking facilities. Page 47 It is now proposed that all accommodation units would be fully self-contained and with 4 two-bedroom units. This would represent a material change of use within the proposal from sui generis as previously to C3 (housing) as currently proposed.

Integrated Care Partnership

The ICP, which had made a minimum 5-year commitment to block-book beds within the previous scheme, but is no longer able to make this commitment. This is due to developments in how care is provided, such as a move to assessing people’s care needs in their own homes following discharge from hospital, rather than within ‘step down’ beds in care homes. As mentioned above, there are other potential considerations around a Local Authority allocating beds only to Cranleigh residents.

Retained Policy C5 of the Local Plan (2002) states that: “The Council will seek to ensure that the appearance of Areas of strategic Visual Importance, as shown on the proposals map, is maintained and enhanced. Development inconsistent with this objective will not be permitted.” Page 52 The proposed development is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Assessment. This concludes that “The proposal site is well contained by trees, settlement and topography and there will be minimal visual intrusion beyond the site itself with no effects to the views from the wider rural landscape which affect the character and setting of Cranleigh.”

it is not considered that the visual harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside of the scheme is substantially reduced by this reduction in scale. Both proposed buildings would continue to be extremely large and elongated in scale, at 60m in length on both axis for the care home and 37m by 20m for the healthcare worker accommodation block. Further, the built footprint would continue to be very spread across the site with little meaningful negative space remaining due to the necessary separation of the two large buildings and the cruciform design of the proposed care home. In the officers’ view, notwithstanding that the floor area of the proposed building on site would be reduced from that of the consented 3 storey hospital building, the current proposal would actually have a greater visual impact given the proposed spread of built form across the site. The siting of access points, in a central position to the site off Knowle Lane for vehicles and near to the entrance to John Wiskar Drive, is a continuation of the previous scheme in terms of visual impact. The car parking was previously separated into two areas for the different uses but in the current proposal is indicated to be sited centrally within the site in the form of one large car park. This would result in a very significant expanse of hard surface concentrated in one area, which would be visually detrimental. Page 53 The overall visual impression of the proposed built footprint and layout would be one of the significant urbanisation of what is a greenfield site outside of the developed area boundary.


It is acknowledged that the tree line does limit some views in some directions of the site but it does not provide total screening and the development would remain highly visually perceptible from Knowle Lane, including from the access road. Whilst the playing field use of the site has now ceased and been re-accommodated, the site continues to adjoin and visually read as part of the adjacent open parkland which is both an appropriately open countryside use and containment of the landscape sprawl of the settlement. The development of the site would substantially impinge upon this currently tranquil space. Nighttime illumination of the site would represent a substantial change from the current nighttime darkness which would be perceptible from some distance. The site is within a designated Area of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI). The applicants indicate that they disagree that the area should be identified as such and indicate that they consider the designation out of date. However, this is a Local Plan designation and is extant and not outdated. The buildings would undoubtedly lead to harm to the open nature of the site and lead to harm to the ASVI. The urbanising impacts of 4,741m2 of development up to 12m in height would be highly perceptible and represent a substantial change from the current greenfield status. This would be exacerbated but the sheer scale of the two buildings proposed. It would be highly perceptible for users of the Downs Link, which is the major key public footpath within the borough. Whilst the re-siting of the accommodation block to the north may reduce clear views from the playing field, it would make it more visually prominent from Knowle Lane and the Downs Link, which are both key public views. On this basis, it is considered that the development would continue to lead to landscape harm

You can listen to the meeting here.


No room for Zoom. A Waverley spat but not as bad as Handforth.


A couple of councillors went head to head at a recent meeting of ‘Your Waverley’s Standards Board.

Former Council Leader – Robert Knowless – was firing on all four cylinders when he went into battle to express his misgivings about the way councillors and officers behaved on virtual Zoom meetings. The Government has ruled that virtual meetings will end on May 7, when it’s back to business in the Council Chamber. An edict that has already upset some councils.

It wasn’t quite up to the standard of the spat experienced by the Handforth Parish Council which recently earned national and international notoriety, but nonetheless – it had ‘Your Waverley’s’ Zoom listeners pricking up their ears.

You can hear Cllr Robert `Knowless’ – the member for Haslemere here:


And here’s the response from Waverley’s Deputy Leader – Paul Follows who appealed for a “reality check” on behalf of his colleagues and officers of the council.” Officers who he claimed – deserved an apology.

And here’s Cllr ‘Holier than thou Knowless’ at that very same meeting giving the longest yawn in Waverley’s history. – This shows he has the utmost respect and always upholds the council’s standards for the office that he holds.

We agree with you, Bobby.-  Councillors shouldn’t exhibit sloppy behaviour. They should uphold the same strict standards on Zoom that are expected of them in the council chamber!


The latest leak in Cranleigh?


There’s no better way to embarrass a water authority than to post pictures on social media revealing its inadequacies.

Cranleigh Cllr Liz Townsend 

Cranleigh councillor Liz Townsend – speaking up for Cranleigh… again… and again.

For many months Thames Water has been made aware of a serious leak affecting the Downslink pedestrian footpath which runs through Cranleigh. The public right of way regularly used is more of a paddling exercise than a walking exercise, and it has nothing to do with rain and everything to do with lack of pipe maintenance.

So get off your butts TW – and fix it! Or don’t even think about bringing in a hosepipe ban when the sun starts to shine, because the people of Cranleigh will not take you seriously.

Leaking water pipes are nothing new to the residents of Cranleigh. Once-upon-a-time the leading flood authority and all the statutory agencies met with villagers including the Cranleigh Society at regular flood forums called by former MP Anne Milton. Now, with MP Angela Richardson in the chair – numerous forums have been postponed or cancelled. So get your keyboard out Angie, and start writing – now?

And perhaps we should also mention that as your Government has decreed that it will be illegal for local authorities to hold Zoom meetings from the 7th of May, may we respectfully suggest that you and your colleagues get back to realtime meetings in Parliament?

Perhaps like local authorities, you could also continue to work through the summer recess?  Then you could re-start the regular flood forums on your patch – and hold bodies like Thames Water to account?


A new way of targeting tumours at The Royal Surrey.


Royal Surrey’s New High-tech Machine Uses AI To Target Cancer Tumours

The Ethos machine radiotherapy team

Royal Surrey has launched online adaptive radiotherapy treatment, a revolutionary technique that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to target tumours with extreme precision and provides a personalised plan for cancer patients on each day of their treatment.

The Trust has invested about £2 million in setting up adaptive radiotherapy treatment using the Varian Ethos© machine. This is only the second of its type in use in the UK and fully rolled out will help 175 cancer patients a year.

The machine’s AI software helps the radiotherapy team adapt and update each patient’s treatment plan in real-time, according to a patient’s anatomy on the day.

This online adaptive approach to radiotherapy has the potential to improve treatment accuracy and consequently reduce the dose delivered to surrounding organs, thereby decreasing radiation side-effects.

A patient using the new  radiotherapy machine

Patient experience has been at the centre of the design of the treatment room, using SkyInside© ceiling panels and calming lighting to help soothe and distract patients during treatment. They have a choice of overhead projections to watch, including beautiful underwater scenes, rain forest canopies, cherry blossom trees and starry night skies.

Marianne Dabbs, associate director of operations for oncology, said: “The Ethos AI software lets us fine-tune and tailor patients’ treatments on the day to take into account any changes affecting their body, such as weight gain, or bladder or bowel emptiness compared with when they had their planning scan.

“It has many benefits, including anticipated improved accuracy. The environment is a fabulous space to improve the experiences of both the patients and staff. There is also the potential for it to reduce the need for some invasive procedures where ‘markers’ are inserted to aid tumour location during radiotherapy.”

Peter Gable, 66, who was diagnosed with bladder cancer in April last year, is the first patient to receive the new online adaptive treatment. He said: “It’s brilliant to have the chance to try out this new treatment with the latest technology.

“It looks a lot less clinical and daunting when I go into the treatment room and I can see how it’s going to make things simpler and easier for me.

“I really liked seeing the different scenes on the overhead screen in the scanner and being able to choose what music I could listen to as well.”

Louise Stead, chief executive of Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, said: “A great deal of work has gone into researching and investing in the best available options to treat our cancer patients and we’re excited to have this ground-breaking technology to help us achieve the very best health outcomes for them.

“We are extremely proud to be at the forefront of radiotherapy treatment and taking advantage of the latest AI software technology. There are only 10 countries offering this treatment and only one other Trust in the UK.

“At a time when the NHS is under extreme pressure from the Covid pandemic, it is a lovely boost for our patients and staff to launch this new pioneering treatment.”

Town leaders have objected to a Godalming assisted living scheme.


The former Moles Country Store in Brighton Road – will not become a large four-storey apartment block to join the Birchgrove stable of up-market rental homes, if the town council has anything to do with it.?

The bulk, scale and massing of the huge block of bricks and mortar is too much of an overdevelopment of the former retail site in the opinion of Godalming’s Town councillors. The members of its planning group claimed it would look ‘out of place.’

Does the artist’s impression included in the plans look like a two and three-storey block to you? Have we logged onto the right plans? Because ‘Your Waverley’s newly up-dated Planning Portal has gone into a go-slow – that has brought it almost to a STOP. Not much of an incentive for comments – is it?

Coming soon to a controversial site in Godalming?

There were also concerns about the cost of the new units – believed to be in the region of £5,000 per week based on similar Birchgrove properties, including those already built and occupied in Woking. Councillors also said the huge impact of the buildings would impact on all the other buildings in the area and the ‘built heritage’ of Godalming.

Councillors claimed the building is likely to be considered oppressive by people in the area that surrounds the proposed 49 flats in the two and three-storey buildings, two-flats in another two-storey building and a two-room extra care facility in the former Scats office building. A unit which is described as a Grade 11 listed former cow house. The company also proposes to include communal gardens and parking, a restaurant, lounge bar and guest bedrooms.

Neighbours and others have already registered their objection to the proposed development, describing it as ‘downright ugly and people living on South Hill are concerned that they would be overlooked. However, the company argue it will meet a pressing need for specialist accommodation for older people in the Godalming area and will free up other properties. It will also generate jobs in a development close to the town.

Says one objector.

‘Planning of high rise building will impact views on housing in surrounding areas. This site could be used to bring trade into the town which is already struggling. A lot of housing has been built in the area already without any improvement to infrastructure. Not in keeping with designs in the area. Will impede on traffic to the bottom of Brighten Road.’


Godalming’s Neighbourhood Plan indicates it would ‘strongly encourage more older people’s developments in the Farncombe and Godalming area.


Will ‘Your Waverley’ roll over and allow yet another deferral of a controversial Cranleigh application?


Cranleigh Village Health Trust says it is disappointed that Waverley Borough Council is recommending its plans be REFUSED when councillors meet to determine its planning application next week.

‘We’re in yet another sticky situation.


The so-called – Cranleigh Charity doesn’t like the recommendation to REFUSE its latest application for a 64 Private Care Home with 16 community beds and a residential block, so it wants yet another deferral. This despite the fact that Cllr Patricia Ellis has called for it to be heard by the eastern committee next Wednesday!

What part of the words ‘ WE OBJECT’  doesn’t Waverley Borough Councillor Patricia Ellis understand?


Oh, dear! The load gets heavier every day. As letters and petitions opposing the CVHT scheme pour in every day. 

So far – the delays – repeat correspondence informing the public of deferrals, withdrawals, and revisions. Together with pamphlets giving Zoom and public speaking arrangements has cost us, council taxpayers dearly.  Shedloads of cash running into many thousands of pounds for a cash-strapped local authority coping with a pandemic!

However the charity – which garnered several millions of pounds from public donors for a HOSPITAL AND A DAY HOSPITAL – says it has good reasons for seeking yet another deferral for yet another planning application on its 20-year hike. 

WHY? SIMPLES – because it doesn’t like the possible outcome. It is also blaming? Yes, you guessed – Waverley’s planning department and Surrey County Council. Why not the Waverley Web we wonder?

The Cranleigh Community Board crashed overnight along with its 9,000 subscribers because it refused to let the public have their say on this toxic project.  CVHT was Verboten!

Who else could the cloak of blame fall upon? Surrey Heartlands Trust no doubt? Or perhaps the key stakeholder in the project – Cranleigh Parish Council – speaking on behalf of the villagers they represent, and who it was claimed, had refused to speak to them!  Cranleigh charity’s request for ‘private meeting’ UNANIMOUSLY REFUSED.

CVHT says:

Our planning consultant has today requested that the council defer the hearing of our application at committee, for two main reasons.

Reason No 1

Firstly, the report comments about the lack of clarity around how the proposed funding of community benefit would work in practice or be secured via a legal agreement.

We feel this statement is unfair and prejudicial to the application, as we have been awaiting comments from Waverley Borough Council about the draft legal agreement, known as a Section 106 agreement.

When our earlier application was refused in November 2019, the report at the time explained that “The case for development at this large scale is considered to be substantiated and it is reasonable to concur that the community beds can be secured via a legal agreement”.

There now appears to have been a significant change in this view, but we have not received any explanation for the change.

As we have not been given the opportunity to engage with Waverley Borough Council about the wording of a legal agreement, to demonstrate how this would work, we are concerned that councillors will have an unreasonable doubt in their minds on this matter.

Reason No 2 –

The second reason for requesting a deferral is to give us more time to consider the newly submitted comments from Surrey County Council.

“These comments suggest that Surrey County Council has ‘sufficient capacity for residential care beds through its existing block contract arrangements with care home operators in Surrey.”

We feel this statement contradicts the earlier committee report which states: “…there is a shortage of affordable residential and nursing care home beds that are in line with Surrey County Council’s (SCC) guide price.”

While we accept that there have been some changes in the adult social care sector since this report was published in mid-2019, we have been given no evidence that the massive shortfall mentioned previously has been satisfied, and our proposals would go towards meeting the capacity shortfall, in line with the Surrey County Council guide price.

We need some time to explore this issue by engaging with the Integrated Care Partnership and Surrey County Council, to establish for councillors the current position.

We are also disappointed that our affordable health care accommodation for key workers is given so little positive consideration when it has been improved in terms of the size and type in line with past local comments. Our plans will deliver a form of affordable housing tenure which is the same as that which forms the majority of the affordable housing delivered in Waverley in the last 5 years.

This application for health worker accommodation was first made a long time before the Covid crisis and a direct response to the requests of various local public health bodies.

Our planning application remains the best possible way to fulfil our charitable objectives; securing community benefit through the provision of affordable community beds, along with the significant benefit of genuinely affordable housing provision for our valuable NHS and care sector key workers.


Andy Webb the man who heads the Campaign Group that was formed to oppose the scheme and return the land to the village said this morning.

Dear Waverley Web,
“So now the CVHT want to deter their planning application because WBC recommended refusal. 
How long can they drag it out for this time?”
So when will this outfit get the message?
The public who paid for it – don’t want it? Surrey County Council doesn’t want it! Surrey Heartlands Trust doesn’t want it and neither does Cranleigh Parish Council.
So we ask? Cranleigh Village Health Trust? – Apart from a handful of new boys and girls on the block now called Directors who appear to have a big fat egotistic goose laying a huge golden egg in their laps to pay for this local farce? Who actually does want it? 
So come on Waverley Planners – isn’t it time to tell this outfit its time is up?

What part of the words ‘WE OBJECT’  doesn’t Waverley Borough Councillor Patricia Ellis understand?


Make a date with Pattie on Waverley’s YouTube channel – 6 p.m. on Wednesday 24 February?

Erection of a 64 Bed Care Home, 16 community beds and 14 flats off Knowle Lane Cranleigh.

Cllr Pat Ellis, the last time something or someone disagreed with her.

Surely, her perverse and myopic view cannot be due to the fact that she and her late husband, both former parish councillors who (a) agreed to parish land being swapped for £1 – without seeking a mandate from the public, could it? BIG MISTAKE!

or (b) failing to take The District Valuer’s advice on his valuation of £250,000 for the land? Even BIGGER bloody MISTAKE!

Or maybe it was (c) that while the deceased former Chairman, Brian Ellis (Aka – “they will build homes at Dunsfold over my dead body.” ) agreed to change the wording of the Legal Covenant to make it more open to abuse? COLOSSAL MISTAKE!

Or perhaps it was (d) because the parish council flatly refused to take the land back after the Cranleigh Village HOSPITAL Trust failed to build a HOSPITAL on the land after their five years were up?  EXTRAORDINARY, SHOCKING – ALMIGHTY MISTAKE!

Or perhaps, having supported past plans – in all their guises – and having called it in, despite advice to the contrary on previous occasions – Cllr Patricia Ellis truly believes that what Cranleigh needs is a private nursing home and residential development in the centre of the village? Possibly as a monument to a shed load of mistakes made by herself and her late, unlamented husband and their cronies on the parish council at the time. 

Added to which it would be a slap in the face not only for Cranleigh residents, the MAJORITY of whom are bitterly opposed to these proposals but also to those existing parish councillors – who were not a party to Pattie & Brian’s disastrous decisions – and are now trying their damndest to rectify the mistakes of their predecessors.


Seriously, Pattie, you need to stop defending the indefensible and if you can’t help yourself, then just butt out! This is the second occasion you have called in this application after officers had refused it under their delegated powers. So you have sent another shedload of our cash-strapped local authority’s money down the pan!

Or, are you prepared, as is the view of many of your constituents, to sacrifice Cranleigh on the alter of a couple of narcissistic men’s egos?

Here’s a link to the parish council’s most recent letter OBJECTING. May we respectfully suggest to Cllr Ellis, that it might be a good idea to read it?

Better to keep your mouth closed and thought to be a fool than open it and remove all doubt?


P.S  Just down the road, is the boarded-up Surrey County Council’s Longfields Residential Nursing Home at Killicks in Cranleigh. A former county council dementia and nursing home for 56 residents lies, rotting away – because it and Surrey Heartlands Trust want to provide a different model of care in future by keeping people, wherever they can, in their own homes. A site now included in ‘Your Waverley’s land availability Assessment for 20 dwellings.

Taken from the top of the Waverley Borough Council Planning Portal. There there are now 458 letters of OBJECTION and a petition and 253 in SUPPORT – many of which are for a HOSPITAL and from as far afield as Jersey!

Plus another 64 letters of objection and one of Support since this snapshot was taken!
Parish or Town Council Comments – 25.01 Cranleigh PC Comments pg3
5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response
    5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Pat Shepherd (Object)
    5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Shelly Taylor (Object)
    5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Andrew Stephens (Object)
    5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Terence Smith (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Clive Walker (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Jc Napier (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Reg Marchant (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Shane Marriott (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Christine Makubale (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Charlie Elliott (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Michael Brown (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Julian Croft (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Committee Call-in Correspondence – Councillor Ellis reasons for referral August 2021
    3 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Hilary Wilson (Object)
    3 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Jane Heathcott (Object)
    3 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Linda Halls (Object)
    3 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Graham Matthews (Object

Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust – That changed its name to Cranleigh Village HEALTH Trust.

And the list goes on, and on.  One local warrior has even carried out an exercise to identify where the SUPPORT comes from. Which include numerous family members of Trustees, duplicate letters from Trustees, and many who still honestly believe the Cranleigh Village Health Trust is going to build them a HOSPITAL!


Cllr Ellis’s letter: Dear Kate.

Thank you for your email and whilst I have not predetermined the matter I do believe that should the officers be minded to refuse this application it should be openly considered and determined by committee.

I believe that many of the objections raised with regard to the previous application have been addressed and that the provision of this facility, which is conveniently situated in the centre of the village, will help to alleviate increasing demands on health care facilities and that the community beds will greatly enhance the existing services available to all residents of Cranleigh and the surrounding area.

The provision of on-site accommodation with private en suite bathroom facilities and individual kitchens will be most helpful to those employed within the health care services who currently find it almost impossible to find affordable housing in the area.

Many thanks and regards. Patricia Ellis
Councillor, Cranleigh West.

Here’s the Officers’ recommendation for the virtual Zoom meeting onWednesday  24 February at 6 p.m.https://modgov.waverley.gov.uk/documents/g3742/Public%20reports%20pack%2024th-Feb-2021%2018.00%20EASTERN%20Planning%20202021.pdf?T=10

‘Your Waverley’ continues to support community organisations – including one in Guildford.


The council has recognised that during the pandemic Waverley’s local community organisations have been going through a torrid time.


 Cllr Michaela Martin told  Waverley’s Executive that the COVID-19 pandemic had proved a challenging time for everyone. She recommended that the current 3 year Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) for twelve community organisations should remain the same, but only for one year. This would give all the organisations some certainty for budgeting, staffing and services, until such time as they are able to look again at their business plans and strategies to determine how they would deliver services in the future.

Deputy leader Cllr Paul Follows was pleased to see that certain grants had been reinstated. Two had now been more fairly proportioned – in particular to The Hazelway, in Haslemere and The Clockhouse in Milford.

“It is all about fairness, and recognising the work that is being done by these two organisations.” he said.

Haslewey, Haslemere – An Exemplar Model.

The Haslemere centre had been funded for 2 ½ years towards services for older, lonely and isolated people only. Haslewey had continued to develop its services and provide an exemplar model of delivery. It had worked positively with the Council and is always willing to adapt and try new things. It was felt that this approach should be recognised and increased funding would bring Haslewey up to similar levels of the other day/community centres. The funding would contribute towards the development of services as well as contributing towards overheads.

 Brightwells Gostrey, Farnham – It was proposed that the ‘higher needs grant’ be withdrawn. As staff delivering the higher needs service had been made redundant and the service had ceased operating.

However, the centre continued to deliver the Community Meals Service but had ceased providing all other day centre services. Its board was taking this opportunity to review and refresh all services and the future shape of the organisation. The proposed funding would continue to contribute towards running costs, anticipating that new services/activities will have been shaped by April (restrictions permitting), and possibly elements of the Community Meals Service delivery for 2021/22 only.

The former Tory administration spent £3.2 million on the Gostrey Centre extension to the Memorial Hall – a project which originally was to have been built by Crest at the Brightwells development in East Street at their expense!

How did Waverley Conservatives manage to shrink the Brightwells dividend so much?

Cllr Follows said whilst it was recognised there was a need to look at the ways future grants were paid,  to change them during the present pandemic when organisations were working under such difficult circumstances, would be a deeply troubling thing to do.

  Cllr Martin said the funding would be paid according to the individual SLA agreements, either for the full year, quarterly or half-yearly. This would support the individual organisations’ budget forecasts and cash-flow.

Officers would then work with organisations so that if they were unable to deliver against their SLA, they could adapt their services in such a way as to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, particularly in relation to mental health, loneliness and social isolation as part of their local community response.

Looking to the future.

In 2021 – post-COVID, the relevant Portfolio Holders would work with Officers and the Community Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committee to develop appropriate proposals for longer-term funding based on community needs. 

The Head of Housing and Communities wrote to all 12 organisations in November 2020 advising them that the Council is going through a period of change and facing significant financial challenges, highlighting that the Council needed to find an additional £8 million over the next 4 years. The letter explained that this will have an impact on any commissioning process and funding decisions in the future. The SLA budget is a discretionary fund and, along with its other budgets, the Council will need to review its future financial support to community organisations.

This Annex provides details on all the grants provided by Waverley Borough Council in Waverley and in Guildford.

Annexe 1 – SLA proposals 2021-22

     The Executive RESOLVED to:

  1. i)approve the renewal of the current SLAs with the 12 partner organisations for one year only, 2021/22 at the proposed levels of funding as shown in Annexe 1 and as part of the budget setting process.
  2. ii)approve the withdrawal of funding to Brightwells Gostrey for the higher needs service and divert these funds to Haslewey to support services for older people and contribute towards running cost as shown in Annexe 1.

       Agree on the establishment of an Executive Working Group to review the councils funding mechanism to voluntary sector organisation from 1 April 2022.

Organisations WBC  funds through Service Level Agreements


Funding levels

Three-year SLAs, 1 April 2018 – 31 March 2021

Organisation Funding per year
Citizens Advice Waverley £210,000
Waverley Hoppa Community Transport £108,000
Farnham Maltings Outreach £33,000
Haslewey Community Centre £26,000
The Clockhouse £53,000
Farncombe Day Centre £66,000
Cranleigh Arts Centre £22,000
Brightwells Gostrey Centre £55,000
Rowleys Centre for the Community £55,000
Voluntary Action South West Surrey £8,000
Farnham Assist £8,000
Age UK Surrey £26,105

Is time for the people of Waverley to come to the aid of Farnham?


If a Government Inspector allows Bewley Homes to develop land in Badshot Lea it will send an Exocet missile through Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan and could herald open season for other developers to build in Farnham.


Is another Neighbourhood Plan about to hit Waverley’s wheelie bin?

        Oh! Carole

The very integrity of the Neighbourhood Plan that  Waverley Borough Councillor Carole Cockburn slaved over for years is now at stake with this single application. Is it any wonder she looks so glum?

Last week it was Haslemere calling for support from everyone: The temperature may be dropping in ‘ Your Waverley’ but its rising in Haslemere.
So WHY DOES Farnham needs your help. National Housebuilder Bewley Homes has appealed the refusal of their application for building 140 houses at Land at Lower Weybourne Lane, Badshot Lea. The site was excluded from both the 2017 Farnham Neighbourhood Plan and the revised 2020 copy which received the full backing of residents with an extraordinary 95.5% support.

The Farnham Society strongly objected to the application when it was considered and subsequently refused by Waverley `Planners. It will submit similar comments to the Planning Inspector for his consideration at the Public Inquiry.

It is now asking everyone to write to the Inspector and record that the site is not included within the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2020 and the appeal should be dismissed.
Waverley Planners refused the scheme because:
  • It outside the settlement
  • In the countryside
  • On Flood Zone 2
  • On land that is potentially contaminated
  • The Strategic Gap between Farnham and Aldershot.
  • On land that planning consent has been refused in: Twice in the 1950s;1986; 2013; and 2020. 
After all – it isn’t just Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan that is at stake here, is it? A decision here could impact on all those other local plans – Haslemere; Godalming; Cranleigh’s and others that are either completed or well on their way.

Application Reference: WA/2019/1905

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/R3650/W/20/3262641

Deadline for commenting: Thursday 25 February 2021

Address for hardcopy letters: Alison Dyson, The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN

Historically the Inspectorate has required three copies of any written representation.

Representations can be online via https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ 

Enter the Planning Inspectorate number 3262641 in the ‘Search for a Case’ box and then click on the ‘Make representation’ box which moves you towards an opportunity to complete a request for your details.

If you can find time to write to the Inspector and simply say that the proposals are contrary to the ‘made’ Farnham Neighbourhood Plan the Society says it would be very grateful.

Coming soon to a controversial site in Godalming?


Now’s the time for the residents of Godalming to have their say on the future of the Mole Country Store formerly the  SCATS  buildings.   Retail went a few years back. Now developers want – the important site to make way for posh assisted living units.
Typical rent for a two-bedroom property is in the region of £5,000 per month – but with only council tax to pay. All other utilities and services are included.
More detail here.
Birchgrove wants to build 53 flats with 24-hour care in a three, and part five-storey building, in extensive landscaped grounds. There would be two buildings and alterations to the listed building – formerly Alan Paine Knitwear, following demolition of the existing buildings. 
Birchgrove operates a portfolio of extra-care developments offering contemporary self-contained apartments in new purpose-built facilities. There is already a Birchgrove home in nearby Woking.

Different from your usual assisted-living home.


The company claims to be different from most other extra care developments in the country, as it works on a rental model. It believes that renting a home instead of owning is the most liberating form of tenure for older people seeking extra care. This offers the benefits of independent living whilst removing the complication of homeownership? The proposed one and two-bedroom apartments are only available for weekly rent to people over the age of 65.
Typical rent for a two-bedroom property is in the region of £5,000 per month – but with only council tax to pay. All other utilities and services are included.
So if you want to have your say: on the former Moles Country Store in Brighton Road – speak up now or forever hold your peace.

Cllrs call for comments.

The official description for the application is as follows:
Erection of 2 buildings and alterations to existing Listed Building to provide 53 assisted living units (Use Class C2) with associated communal facilities, landscaping, amenity space and parking following demolition of the existing warehouse building.
 Link to the application and to comment:

A nasty shunt for the hapless Hunt?


Plastered – NO SILLY! Not that kind of plastered (although you could be forgiven for thinking he’d had one too many in the circumstances) as our MP recovers in the arms of the NHS at The Royal Surrey after hitting the road.

This week will not go down as one of his finest for our South West Surrey MP Jeremy Hunt and Valentine’s hug for Mrs H is looking decidedly awkward.

Our keen runner took a tumble on a patch of ice – not exactly his first slip-up though is it?

It may be churlish to hit a man when he’s down. But this week he made a Mea Culpa – in fact, a Maxima Mea Culpa. Saying: “I share blame for NHS response.”

About time too!  Was the muttered opinion of one or two of our correspondents but others felt he deserved praise for his honesty.

The Rt Hon gentleman admitted and has accepted that he shares some of the blame for the slow response to the pandemic because the health system was “on the back foot” due to decisions he made as health secretary.

Praise the Lord!  At last!  A politician owning up to his mistakes.  Did he take the lead from the Head-Honcho, when Boris humbled himself before the country when the death toll reached 100,000?

We here at the Waverley Web wonder what JH thought of the comments made by Annabel Denham, of the Institute of Economic Affairs, in our post yesterday? A failing NHS or poor Government policy and decision-making?

A failing NHS or poor Government policy and decision-making?

Mr Hunt, who was health secretary from 2012 to 2018, said he regretted failing to boost the NHS workforce numbers earlier in his tenure. He said failure to ensure adequate staff had held back England’s test and trace efforts. He also acknowledged “groupthink” in focusing pandemic preparations on influenza, rather than on more virulent Sars-like pathogens.

Well done Jeremy – you have lifted our spirits, here at the Waverley Web, even though yours may be a little low at the moment. A man prepared to admit his mistakes is as rare as hen’s teeth.

We at the Waverley Web wish you a speedy recovery and hope you enjoy spending more time with your family – even though they may be painting a picture that you would rather not have on your drawing rooms walls?!


A failing NHS or poor Government policy and decision-making?


One of our followers watched this debate this week. Within moments of watching the smug, opinionated Annabel Denham of the Institute of Economic Affairs we began tearing our hair out from the roots. Somewhat difficult for some of our more follicly challenged guys! 

No doubt NHS workers were too busy on the front-line, suffocating under the weight of their PPE, masked up, gloved-up and booted to listen to the insufferable Annabel who works for the right-wing think tank which is funded by anonymous donors. The very same think tank that was involved in a cash for questions row? Perhaps they will watch this if they are not too exhausted if, and when they ever get home! 

So the question is?

Q Is the National Health Service to blame for all our ills – or is it poor political decision-making by successive Governments? We will let you be the judge.

Staffing is an issue keeping NHS leaders awake at night. And just like ‘Your Waverley,’ it is the staffing budget which consumes a large part of its spending. In the case of the NHS – two thirds.  

For most NHS workers the last 11 months have been the most stressful of their careers. A horrible mixture of last-minute redeployment, understaffing, exhaustion, and facing a brand-new disease with initially few treatment options. They reached their limit months ago.

With barely any time to briefly recover, the second wave hit, seeing acute, general and intensive care beds fill up.

Well-being initiatives ebbed and flowed – with some trusts scrapping things (like free car parking and hot meals at night) only to bring them back again as the second peak emerged.

And the government’s hard-line on staff pay will not have helped to boost fading morale. In fact, we here at the WW have first-hand knowledge of senior staff who have just given up.

Although COVID hospital admissions have started to fall and 13 million people are now vaccinated, staff are still under immense pressure in all care settings. Any pressure from the centre to start recovering suspended services would be premature.

The public will, of course, be hopeful that normal service will resume from the spring, and fairly so, but this is not only dependent on hospital capacity but also staff recovery. It is perhaps easier to focus on available beds rather than the number of people able to staff them.

Commenting about staff well-being on Twitter, following a piece from NHS Providers’ Chris Hopson, chief executive of Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospital FT Sarah-Jane Marsh stressed:

“There can be no service recovery without people recovery.”

“In children’s services, people recovery means actually treating children again,” she added, highlighting how the impact of COVID has spread far beyond acute and intensive care.

With trusts making very positive sounds about their staff vaccination campaigns, they are right to be hopeful sickness rates will improve. But there is currently no vaccine for burn out.


Due to a change in rules, key workers are able to carry over four weeks’ leave into the next two years, and employers should ensure staff do this. Without giving staff a proper break the NHS risks losing its greatest asset.


Farnham’s Blightwell’s not coming soon?


The opening of Surrey County Council’s flagship development at Brightwells Yard was to have opened next month – then postponed to July – and now until September. Will the 25 shops and restaurants open in time for Christmas?

As you will gather from the clip Waverley’s Portfolio holder for Planning & Development is full of optimism prompted by the developer. Possibly as a Surrey County Councillor, he needs to look on the bright side of life, as a former administration there invested a shedload of money around £54million when a private investor couldn’t be found to back the scheme. The mixed housing/retail development in East Street includes 25 retail units 8 of which are restaurants.  Here’s the present state of play on our specially designed Waverley Web sticker board. For those in the borough that don’t shop in Farnham – Sainsbury’s has been there for years.

Here’s what The Farnham Society thinks of the unpopular development in the link below.

As Blightwells continues to rear its ugly head the opening has been delayed – again.

He also gives an update on Local Plan Part 2 – which has been out for public consultation.


Will the High Street blight hit Blightwells?

You do have to admire developer Crest Nicholson’s supreme confidence in its abilities to let 70% of the units. Perhaps its a BOGOF – buy one get one free?


Flooding in Cranleigh Waters affects Rudgwick.


Looks great doesn’t it – that is until there is heavy rain and your brand new home is near to the Cranleigh Waters.

Looks and sounds idyllic until he rains come down?


Tanisha Mancini and her family were grateful for the help of friends and villagers to stop floodwater entering their homes recently.

EDIT – have managed to get the water redirected, thankyou everyone
Barley Croft estate, 4 of our gardens have flooded rising up to our doors, can anyone help?????????

  • Houses in fields don’t work without the right environmental protections being put in place 1st. Ring the developer and get them to sort it out.
    Something the planners, and Developers had not looked into being on clay ground, it’s obviously not been checked out beforehand on the ground surveys, being on fields proper drainage, and flood defences couldn’t have been put in, also is not this development near the top of the hill off Church street just below the Kings head and Church, no great comfort being the people that got their new homes flooded but it’s quite clearly a claim worthy problem as you are victims of failings at the roots of the development. If not sorted it could be an ongoing problem and may affect the foundation of your homes.
    Tanisha Mancini

    Thankfully managed to stop it from coming in and redirected the water! Hopefully having everything sorted! X


Some day over the rainbow in Haslemere’s Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty


If the people of Haslemere could wish upon a star this Area of Great Landscape Value, Outstanding Natural Beauty and Green Belt will stay just as it is pictured here.  A greenfield burgeoning with wildlife. 

With Waverley’s Local Plan Part 2 public consultation now closed, officers are currently sorting through the responses. The consultation called for the public to support or object to sites within the plan which includes this land At Red Court in Haslemere.

Only 7 days to pitch in to help Haslemere protect its green spaces.

So how many homes ARE proposed at Haslemere’s Scotland Park?

Let’s hope for the sake of Haslemere people Waverley’s new administration will do what it said on the tin. Be open, honest and transparent and listen to the views of local people.


It must be an election year in ‘Your Waverley?’


 Watch out there’s an election about!

Elections Ballot Box

Where will you be putting your vote in May’s Surrey County Council Elections?

Despite being in the middle of a Pandemic and told  to hunker down we hear the county election is ON. Even in Woking where hanging out of the window for a breath of fresh air looks a strong possibility! 

For those of you who read the Waverley Web, it will come as no surprise then that in recent months our Tory-controlled Surrey County Council has been throwing money and ideas at us. Or perhaps they should be called bribes? WHY? Simples – because it wants to take control of the whole county, dumping 11 borough and district councils along the way!  After, all isn’t that what everyone wants – one huge behemoth Unitary Authority based in Leatherhead?  

: Bye Bye ‘ Your Waverley’ Hello ‘ Surrey?’

Here’s another: Roll up, roll up for the Big Surrey Giveaway.

Wow! £100 million pounds – and the race to snaffle some of the cash has already begun! Strange that?   Do the head honchos at Surrey really believe the county’s voting fodder is completely stupid? Too preoccupied with trying to feed their families, home-school them – and hang on to thier ever-increasingly precarious jobs to actually notice that we are facing record council-tax and service tax hikes? Too dumb to realise that the county council is facing massive losses on its investment income in retail outlets – like Blightwells here in Farnham and retail parks around the country?

Perhaps they think we are no longer aware of the ever-increasing potholes  because we are forced to ‘Stay at home – Stay Safe and Save the NHS?’

Did Surrey County Council celebrate National Pothole Day?

So what are the Tories up to – as they prepare to smash any opposition to their rightful fiefdom of County Hall?

Let’s begin with Godalming: Where finally Cllr Peter Martin –  former SCC Council Chairman leader has now thrown in the towel.

Life for him hasn’t been quite the same since he was thrown out of his job and forced to apologise for inappropriate remarks to a wannabe employee!

The Conservative councillor resigned after admitting he had shown a lack of “cultural awareness” and “good judgement” during a recent interview.

Godalming’s Surrey County Councillor Peter Martin resigns as Chairman.

So who is the incumbent county councillor hanging over the baton too?  None other than young Mum Kirsty Walden. Who says on her Facebook Page:

“As a local resident to (SIC) Godalming for over eight years and Mum to a young four-year-old daughter attending a local school, I care deeply about local matters that affect us all.
I hope to be elected as your County Councillor to take an active role in ensuring the voices of our community are (SIC) heard.
With the current strange new virtual world that living with Covid means, I’ll use this page to post updates about those matters that are important to you over the next few months – please do take a moment to follow this page. Further details on virtual events and other ways to share your views will follow.
Kirsty x

Perhaps someone can remind us? Wasn’t it Kirsty who was working abroad when she stood in the 2019 election for a seat on ‘Your Waverley?’ No worries there then?  Although she failed, she should take a leaf out of Guildford MP Angela Richardson’s book and take heart from one of her Tory colleagues who also failed in her bid to represent Cranleigh. The Hon Angie  failed to secure a seat at Waverley Towers but just look at her now! – Private Secretary to non-other than Secretary of State for Education Gavin Williamson! So being a Boris Buddy does work!

? It cannot be true – can it? Another Tory CHINO – who wants to join ‘ Your Waverley.’

And then – in comes Frank: Standing in Godalming North and Binscombe – who says he doesn’t care who you usually vote for – because in future he wants you to vote for him.
Frank Young says he doesn’t want to be “political point-scoring” candidate and then wades straight in on a political point-scoring argument over the slight extension of the Godalming Community Store that resulted in two of his Tory mates Steve Cosser and Peter Martin refusing to back the Lib-Dem controlled Town Council scheme to extend its life by a few months. Realising the electoral error – The Tories, desperately sought to shrug off the ‘Nasty Party’ image and is now claiming they, and the local MP, back the community store but not at The Wilfred Noyce Centre, which they want for activities –  no doubt ZOOMBA? 
OH NO -Not another TORY chino! ‘Councillor Here In Name Only?’

Interestingly we see that Frank Young has already resigned once in March 2017 (Elected 2015 Godalming, Binscombe), due to ‘work pressures.’

After working as a Conservative party campaign manager, he got a job in October 2015 for a far-right think tank, the Centre for Social Justice, set up by Iain Duncan Smith and Tim Montgomerie of all people.

So tell us please Frank? How on earth can you represent residents at Surrey County Council, a body which meets during the day?

A spokesman for Godalming Town Council said at the time: 
“Godalming Town Council has regretfully accepted the resignation of Cllr Frank Young.  Cllr Young has found it increasingly difficult to balance his full-time job in London, family commitments as well as his responsibilities as a town councillor and fulfilling his duties of representing the residents of Binscombe.”
So where do the other candidates for a county council seat stand?

Here’s what Lib Dem Paul Follows says:

“Well, it’s sad to say that you can already tell there is a county election coming.

It disappoints me greatly that certain people are content to just outright lie and mislead – even here at the local level. I have grown a thick skin these last few years with the threats, nasty comments etc. But watching them lie to residents crosses a line.

Paul Follows – Chairman of Godalming Town Council and Leader of ‘Your Waverley.’ Pictured here at the High Court in London where he attended the hearing to save Waverley’s Local Plan.

My message to residents is this.

“I hope it’s clear that I am around all the time on social media, and not just for elections.
We may not always agree but I hope you feel you can certainly always talk to me about whatever the concern is.
Please always feel free to check with me if you see comments about me elsewhere or about something I’ve supposedly said.
With a pandemic going on I think we could all do without the electioneering – but that’s a part of democracy. Outright lies and trying to mislead residents is not!
I urge you to call those people out when they do.
My pledge here and now –
➡️ if I quote anyone else I will provide evidence / a source.
➡️ if I’m talking about something and referring to outside evidence, I will always share a link.
Ask for sources. Ask for evidence. Let’s have a fair election.
Thank you.
Cllr Paul Follows
We here at the Waverley Web could also add – how about judging candidates on their past efforts – not what they claim their future efforts might be?

Is a Cranleigh charity’s latest cunning plan based on ‘a wing and a prayer?’


So where exactly is the community benefit in return for the loss of one of the last areas of open green spaces left in the centre of Cranleigh?

That was the question that village leaders asked themselves at an Extraordinary Virtual Meeting of Cranleigh Parish Council on Monday.

Councillors gathered online to consider yet another set of plans from   Cranleigh Village Health Trust (CVHT) to build a 64-bed Private Care Home – which included 16 community beds – and a residential accommodation block of 14 flats for health-workers. A charity that over 20 years collected millions of pounds of public money to build a replacement Hospital/Day Hospital with hospital beds. But which – due to support being withdrawn by local health and social care bodies now wants to fulfil its charitable objectives – in a different way.

Before debating the issue which has driven a stake through the heart of Cranleigh the council wanted to hear villagers’ views – FOR or AGAINST? 

A controversial planning proposal that has driven a stake through Cranleigh and the eastern villages. Splitting it apart.

Clerk Beverly Bell gave a slick slide presentation outlining the complicated recent history of the issues before them.

These are included here: Slides – Cranleigh Parish Council


First to speak was Andy Webb who heads the Campaign Group he founded to stop the development and return former publicly-owned land to the village.

He told councillors that the charity had underestimated the community’s opposition to the project. Having read the applicant’s Agent’s report, it was clear there were NO guaranteed benefits to the community, and if planning permission was granted, the community beds could eventually become part of the Private Care Home.  The junction proposed onto Knowle Lane, combined with accesses to local businesses – (including Sainsbury’s Depot  Marks & Spencers)  was dangerous for both existing traffic and future construction traffic. The loss of valuable green space and the noise and light pollution to the neighbours in Wiskar Drive were strong reasons to refuse. He reprimanded the CVHT for failing to meet the parish council and the public.

Said Mr Webb.

“I can assure both this parish council and the CVHT and anyone else who may be listening that we – the public – are, and always have been, open to having a polite and civilised meeting with them – and we do not take kindly to the suggestion that it would be otherwise.”


CVHT had blamed the parish council by letter for its failure to meet them before re-submitting their application. A claim that has upset parishioners, the parish clerk and councillors. All of whom voted to meet them in public, offering them privacy for any commercially confidential information. Their behaviour has been seen as reprehensible towards a key partner – who provided public land valued at circa £250,000 in exchange for agricultural land and a peppercorn pound.

 Retired Nurse and resident Sue Mellor claimed the community beds, in their present form, were no longer needed. There were now 24 extra beds consented at the Knowle Park Nursing Home nearby. 

She asked? Is it now possible for the parish council to re-claim the land?

She said health bodies, all of whom had withdrawn their support – were now proposing a very different model of health-care outside nursing homes, in a bid to keep patient safer at home.

During the lengthy debate, Cllr Richard Coles said many of the council’s previous concerns remained. Changes proposed different access for users of the community beds, which would now be down to the CVHT. However, the beds would be the same as available elsewhere  – they were no longer free and it would be up to individuals to pay at means-tested local authority rates.

“This is a greenfield site where there is increased traffic. It doesn’t seem that the benefits to the community are any better now than from previous schemes- in fact, I think it has got worse.”

Documents on the Waverley Planning Portal show that the Circa £7m private nursing home with 64 beds would charge residents £1,200/£1, 310 per week.  WA/2020/0965.  http://planning360.waverley.gov.uk/planning/search-applications?civica.query

The 16 community beds would be circa £725 p.w. IF, the local authority will buy them? Surrey Heartlands Health Trust and the county council pulled out of the scheme 3 months ago – saying they now want a different model of care for their clients in future.  It wants to move away from nursing home-based healthcare and support Cranleigh people in their own homes.

A £2.5m accommodation block of 14, flats proposed for health-care workers, mainly employed by the private nursing home would be let for £195 62 pence p.w for one bed and £253.15 p w for 2-beds. But no 106 legal agreement currently exists? 

A fact which, Cllr Rowena Tyler claimed, was not particularly affordable for an average health-care worker and similar properties, with gardens, were available on Rightmove in the area at a similar rent!  

 CVHT – would expect a 7% – ‘developer’s profit – from the residential investment together with a 10% management cost.No allowance had been made for any S.106 contributions albeit it is known that a travel plan will be required for both the care home and the accommodation block. Neither is there any Community Infrastructure Levy  (CIL).  Money towards making improvements to Cranleigh’s infrastructure as resulting from the impact of the development.

Cllr Nigel Sanctuary’s assessment of the community beds was no longer (as has been claimed by the charity) ‘free at the point of access.’  Both Waverley’s and CVHT’s Viability Statements were complicated, and sometimes vague. The Charity’s lacked any clear, legal, or binding commitments. He also failed to understand the figures put on the value of the land. But his major and overriding concern was “future usage of those community beds”

“This is on the cusp of viability, and we could be left with a white elephant in future. There is no certainty over a future operator – all we know is – that we just don’t know?”

Rowena Tyler claimed there was no evidence on the sustainability of the project – or what would happen to the Paddock Field, should permission be refused. Local people also wanted to know who the ‘Benefactor/s’ referred to in the documents actually were?

Cllr Dave Nicholas – said his previous concerns were already well documented. ‘Overdevelopment of the site.’

“However, we just cannot ignore the strength of opposition from the community – most people who speak to me – just don’t want it. The risks of embarking on the charity’s present chosen pathway which says- let’s sort out the detail later, could come back to haunt you.’

Cllr Rob Denton’s concerns were the separation of the residential accommodation block from the Care Home, which he said:

Cllr Marc Scully agreed.  “This project just doesn’t stack up –  there are insufficient funds for this to work in the present fluctuating market.’

 Cllr Cole said he didn’t  wish to object on the basis of the Viability Assessment, but on the lack of legal agreements, community infrastructure levy, and the loss of green space on a site outside the settlement zone of Cranleigh, in an area designated as an ASVI – (Area of Strategic Visual Importance.) He also agreed with Cllr Taylor’s concerns about the uncompetitive rents proposed for the flats.

Chairman Liz Townsend said the parish council could not rely on others tying up the loose ends of the proposed scheme later and was opposed to the accommodation block not being ancillary to the Care Home.

“What we are talking about here is an exceptional site where development can only be approved in exceptional circumstances. This is mini-Green Belt and an ASVI, where a replacement hospital, supported by the community, was once proposed. We have to ask ourselves – is, this proposal for a private care home and residential development for the benefit of our community, when there are lots of affordable and shared ownership homes being built here in Cranleigh?

 It was finally agreed that unlike on previous occasions when as a major key stakeholder in the hospital project, the parish council had ‘not supported the scheme.’ On this occasion, – Cllr Taylor proposed that the council should go further and OBJECT, and provide Waverley planners with a host of reasons why. She was seconded by Cllr Jeacock who said: “This application must be refused.”

The recommendation to OBJECT was agreed by 8 votes. (Cllr Richard Cole was AGAINST.)  Cllr Townsend abstained saying she would save her vote for the Waverley planning meeting which is expected to be on February 24th. Members of the public have contacted us here at the Waverley Web surprised – that on every occasion that the CVHT planning application – or any other matter concerning this development has come before the council – Cllr George Worthington has Abstained from voting, but has not declared an interest?

May we respectfully suggest – Don’t put your son on the council, Mrs Worthington – until he can either declare an interest or jump off the fence? 

Q for the future? Has Cllr Hannah Nicholson jumped ship?

Waverley’s Viability Assessment concludes.

 In summary, we can conclude the development does not generate a surplus over the benchmark land value, and thus the number of open market care home beds is less than is necessary to provide full funding to the community beds and health worker accommodation. The balance of funds required has been pledged by CVHT and local benefactors who wish to see the scheme proceed and the public benefit from these facilities be realised.

Good reasons to stay even safer in Waverley?


Was there ever an even better reason to stay safe and vigilant in ‘Your Waverley?’

 The recent outbreak of the more infectious South African COVID variant just down the road in Woking – should serve as a timely warning to us all.


COVID variant identified in Woking leads to surge testing launch.

Surrey Local Resilience Forum (SLRF) is working with Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care to carry out a localised ‘surge testing’ programme in the Goldsworth Park and St Johns areas of Woking.

Just a very short distance from Waverley, particularly Godalming, Farnham and Haslemere and the villages on the Waterloo railway line?

This follows notification that a specific variant of COVID-19 has been identified from two, and now three, positive tests in the area, in residents who have no links to travel or previous variant cases. The variant is known as the SARS-CoV-2 variant (also known as VOC-202012/02) which originated in South Africa.

Further details can be found in the surge testing statement on Surrey County Council’s website. 

It says on Waverley’s COVID WEBSITE. It is important that all residents of Surrey remain vigilent (SIC) and follow the hands, face, space guidance.

 It is even MORE IMPORTANT for the residents of our borough to obey the rules – to keep the strain OUT of our borough to prevent even more lives being lost!

An Extraordinary Meeting in Cranleigh to consider yet another cunning plan?


Tonight – Monday – Village leaders will once again sit down to consider yet another reboot of the Cranleigh Village Health Trust’s ambitions to build on land it sold to the charity for £1.

Cranleigh Parish Council will decide whether it will back yet another incarnation of a scheme that has driven a stake through the heart of Cranleigh and the eastern villages.

Over the years hundreds of letters and a petition containing 4,000 signatures have been posted AGAINST. There have also been hundreds of letters in SUPPORT. Many of which have been for a HOSPITAL!


Councillors are respectfully summoned to attend an online extraordinary meeting of the Parish Council to be held at 7.00 pm on MONDAY 01 FEBRUARY 2021 To join the meeting: Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting Mon, Feb 1, 2021, 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM (GMT)

Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/829134269

You can also dial in using your phone. (For supported devices, tap a one-touch number below to join instantly.) United Kingdom: +44 20 3713 5028 – One-touch: tel:+442037135028,,829134269# Access Code: 829-134-269 New to GoToMeeting? Get the app now and be ready when your first meeting starts:


The Paddock field. The site which is currently proposed for a private care home in the latest planning application.

Over the past 21 years – successive parish and borough councils have ruminated and cogitated over a scheme that was perhaps once, a long, long time ago – referred to as a ‘beacon for healthcare.’  At least that is how it was referred in the archive pages of the “Sorry Advertiser. back in the ’90s.

As the decades have rolled on  – the scheme has morphed from a Hospital/Day Hospital/GP Surgery into a Private Nursing home, with so many different numbers of private, and or, community beds, that forgive us please if we don’t refer to them because we have lost count. Now,  like most of the population of the eastern villages – we and they have joined CONFUSED DOT COM!

In the life of the present scheme, we believe it has now changed from  64 beds in the private nursing home – and 14 community beds to 60 private and 16 for the community. First, they were FREE then they weren’t, first it was a HOSPITAL, and then it wasn’t. Then it was for a named care-home provider – HC-ONE and then it wasn’t or maybe it will be?

Will, they won’t they join the club? Here’s what the Chairman says:

So there you have it, folks. The Cranleigh Village Health Trust is confident it will have an operator for a damned great private nursing home slap-bang in the middle of your village. It is also confident that everyone will want to go into the new nursing home – because, after all, we all lust after going into a nursing home don’t we? And the half dozen or so already in the Cranleigh environs aren’t enough.  Are they? 

And – the fact that your health authority says it wants to provide you with a different type of care in future – in your own home, must mean that another Care Home is required – doesn’t it?

No doubt the poor old parish councillors will have burned the midnight oil trawling over this document from Tetlow King – the Charity’s Agent. A letter which gives all sorts of assurances about the future use of said beds, and the residential flats! Even, chortles on about it is a plus that the Surrey Heartlands Trust and all the other health and social care honchos have now pulled out! Kindly leaving the community beds for the very people who contributed circa £2m and a chunk of public land to provide them with the proposed – private care home! 


The arrogant Agent even goes on to say…

It is incomprehensible to me that any group, the community at large or planning officers would not see the benefits of this development on a piece of land that sits in a sustainable location between extensive built development on either side where this Council has given permission on several occasions in the past.


And just for the record. Planning permission has not been given for this scheme on several occasions in the past!

The Waverley Web cannot help wondering how much this – and all the other applications have cost ‘Your Waverley.” We calculated that if it wrote to everyone on the planning portal that has made a comment it has cost many more thousands of pounds of OUR money!

A Cranleigh development dubbed as ‘awful and objectionable’ has been thrown out by Waverley planners.


Councillors from Elstead, Cranleigh and Bramley joined together to deliver a swingeing attack on the design of a controversial development on the former West Cranleigh Nurseries site in Alfold Road.

The outline planning application – vehemently opposed by Cranleigh people and many local councillors was passed in 2017 on the casting vote of Tory chairman Peter Isherwood. Now four years later – after being sold by Dutch lettuce grower Nick Vrijland it has finally reached the design and landscaping stage for 118 homes by new owners A2 Dominion.  However,  building won’t start until later this year with the completion of some properties in 2022.

West Cranleigh Nurseries bounces back like a rubber ball and councillor Peter Isherwood scores a goal!

Cranleigh Cllr Liz Townsend administered the first blow – after an introduction by ‘mystery planning officer’ Patrick Arthurs – who, surprise, surprise, left the council last year – but returned in voice only, to present the scheme. 

She was promptly followed by Bramley, Busbridge & Hascombe Cllr Martin D’Arcy who expressed  “dismay” that there was no landscaping or management plan and that on an utterly treeless site, 16 types of specimen trees were proposed of which only three were native species.

On the subject of energy sustainability, it was in his opinion “quite bizarre” that all 118  proposed dwellings were to be fitted with gas boilers. Boilers to be phased out by 2030 and with solar panels fitted to only three large apartment blocks.


But it was Elstead  Cllr David Else who described the scheme as –

“probably the worst we have ever seen.”

But it didn’t get any better – with the exception of  Chairman, Cranleigh Cllr Richard Coles, who said he was perfectly satisfied with the design, saying – 

“I find it rather attractive”

Not a problem then for a man, who it is rumored,  is leaving the borough for a new home in the West Country?

Which prompted officer Arthurs to openly criticise councillors for not raising their concerns earlier, saying they should have told him before the meeting if they didn’t like the design!

Ah! So now a Waverley planning officer/developer is asking councillors to pre-determine planning applications before they are heard in public are we? Now – there’s something for the monitoring officer to chew over?

At which point we thought Cllr Liz was going to explode – and literally take off on Zoom to box the ears of officer Arthurs. Saying-

“don’t blame us, that’s what this committee is here for – to make a decision and I really object to being told we should have made this decision earlier”

She said she had made her concerns known in the past, but this was the first time members had seen these (warehouse) apartment blocks, due to the high degree of affordable housing.

They are not in keeping with Cranleigh and are akin to an industrial unit, not a home! The character of the area will be deeply affected by these blocks.

According to Godalming Cllr Paul Follows – once again the council had been bitten by an approved outline scheme when it came to the detail – and…

I agree with every word Cllr Townsend has said:

“This is a design I cannot stand.”

Before deferring the application by 14 votes to one (presumably the chairman) with a strong message to the developer to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more appropriate it was Cranleigh Cllr Ruth Reed’s turn to hammer the last nail home.

You can listen to the whole meeting here.


Does another threat hang over our Surrey Hills?


Having kicked into touch the bid by UK OIL & Gas to drill in Dunsfold – near Hascombe Hills in Waverley – the battle by exploration companies could continue elsewhere.

County planners refused the scheme to drill at High Loxley Road near Dunsfold aerodrome. twice.  Once in June 2020 – a decision ruled invalid due to technical problems during the online meeting. It was refused again in November last year.

Link to the first decision: UK Oil & Gas application in Dunsfold – Refused…for now?

Local campaign group Protect Dunsfold said: “Protect Dunsfold and all involved in fighting that application from UKOG was extremely relieved that the application has been refused on certain planning grounds.

“We feel this is a very fair and realistic judgement in today’s world of climate change.”

 Image courtesy Ackroyd & Harvey/ Surrey Hills Arts / Photo From The Air

However, The licence to drill for oil and gas, not so very far away from Dunsfold, in the area pictured above covering Leith Hill in Surrey, will still be offered to exploration companies, even though successive companies have failed to drill there.

Leith Hill, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, was the site of controversial plans to drill for oil by successive companies over a 12 year period. Europa Oil and Gas pulled out of the site in 2018 after a lengthy legal battle to get planning permission to drill at the site. 

UK Oil & Gas Plc (UKOG), Angus Energy and Egdon Resources Ltd took over the licence from Europa and said they were considering plans for a horizontal drill under Leith Hill from the A24. They gave it up after concluding:

“the required long-reach/shallow target-depth wells are neither technically viable or economically feasible”

James Knapp, on behalf of A Voice For Leith Hill, contacted the Oil and Gas Authority to request an update on the licence now no oil company seems likely to be able to use it. They replied: “We can confirm that PEDL143 was relinquished on 26th September 2020.  The OGA cannot speculate on future out-of-round licence applications that may encompass this area or the outcome of any future licence rounds”.

James Knapp said.

“The licensing system is broken. The Oil and Gas Authority should remove unworkable areas from the licensing rounds.”

“The rules say that companies have to drill, or the licences must be relinquished. This licence area has proved unviable and the blight on the local community and the environment should be lifted by drawing a line under PEDL 143. The Oil and Gas Authority should review its broken licensing system and free wide swathes of the country from the threat of oil and gas drilling.

“In the year of COP26, when we are supposed to be working towards net-zero, it should be routine to withdraw unlicensed areas because there is no requirement for an operator to be compensated. Other countries have stopped fossil fuel exploration altogether. Where is the ambition of this Government?”

For further information about drilling at Leith Hill visit http://www.wealdactiongroup.org.uk/leith-hill/

Contact: info@voiceforleithhill.co.uk


Hospital’s in Surrey & Sussex reach ‘tipping point.’


So ensure when you are called – don’t hesitate – go for it. Stay Safe and Save the NHS.

The Surrey & Sussex Healthcare Trust has warned it may reach a ‘tipping point’ where it is ‘impossible’ to separate COVID positive and negative patients.

The (S&SH ) includes Surrey Heartlands Trust – the organisation that covers the borough of Waverley.

Surrey and Sussex Healthcare Trust also revealed in papers published ahead of its Thursday board meeting that it planned to distribute a “duty of candour” leaflet for patients, warning them of the risk of contracting covid in hospital.

The papers noted covid patients at the trust increased from 80 pre-Christmas to 230 by January, filling half its beds.  figures suggest covid patients at the trust continued to rise until around 14 January before dropping back slightly

The report from the trust’s safety and quality committee said:

“It is becoming more difficult to separate the covid+ and covid- patients. In an increasing number of instances, patients are admitted to cold areas for non-covid treatment and without symptoms but then test positive. These patients then need to be admitted to hot areas and any contacts (including patients from the same bay) isolated.”

“At some point, a tipping point could be reached where it may be impossible to retain hot and cold areas.”

The paper added the criteria for admission to hospital is higher than normal, with patients only being admitted if the risks of not doing so outweigh the risk of contracting covid during their stay. On the other hand, it added criteria for discharge was lower.

The document noted the trust has added intensive care unit beds in converted wards but one patient still had to be transferred to Torbay, where the nearest available ICU bed was sited. Cancer operations are continuing at an independent sector site but much elective work has been cancelled, with only urgent procedures being carried out.

The trust has already reported a number of serious incidents involving hospital-acquired COVID. In one case, three patients died following an outbreak of probable or definite hospital-acquired COVID on two wards. In another, a patient who had shared a bay with someone who developed COVID then died from the disease.

As of 25 January, an estimated 37 per cent of SASH’s adult general and acute beds were occupied by COVID positive patients, a figure which appeared to be stabilising in recent days.

Michael Wilson, chief executive of SASH, and a former director of The Royal Surrey Hospital in Guildford said:

“We have seen unprecedented numbers of patients with COVID being admitted and requiring critical care. Staff continue to pull together to provide safe care and it remains important to inform patients about the risk of infection, the things we are doing to prevent spread and how they can help while in hospital.”


The temperature may be dropping in ‘Your Waverley’ but its rising in Haslemere.


The residents of the much-loved town are flooding Waverley’s planning portal and social media sites with calls to ditch a controversial development site in Haslemere.

Waverley Officer laden down with applications or objections

With only a matter of days to go before the consultation ends on Waverley’s blueprint for development – Local Plan Part 2, officers are set to deal with shedloads of objections.

The consultation ends on Friday, January 29.

You will see from the comments below, and on the planning, portal objections are not from the worried wealthy or the Nimby’s – (Not in My Back Yard’ or even the Nimfy’s Not In My Front Yard) they are from correspondents genuinely concerned about a developer who wants to build in an Area of Great Landscape Value – An Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – and adjacent the South Downs National Park. In fact, if Red Court Ltd get away with this one – nowhere’s safe in Surrey, is it? The developer intends to build a phased development of around 180 homes on a site which is also a wildlife corridor and home to precious flora, fauna and endangered species called – Red Court.

So will ‘Your Waverley’ say as the Tories did with Blightwells in Farnham – ‘bu**er the bats and the wildlife, to hell with heritage buildings and green space, let’s build 28 new shops! Or, as they did in Cranleigh and in Milford ask? ‘flood plains’ what flood plains?”

Or will the new Rainbow Administration that now controls Waverley Borough Council do what it said on the tin when elected?  LISTEN to the people who care about development that will lead to huge biodiversity loss.


All the contact details for having your voice heard are in the link below:

So use it or lose it?

Only 7 days to pitch in to help Haslemere protect its green spaces.

The Cranleigh Health Hydra – rears up with yet another head.


Cranleigh Village Heath trustees, – who now call themselves  ‘Directors,’ – are boasting a new registered office address in the home of an Investment Company, called Omnium Wealth.  All sounds a bit too ominous to us!!!

They are also pressing ahead with their latest planning application – an application that has been languishing among the dusty files at Waverley Towers since last Spring.

So What’s new pussycat?

Same old, same old, as far as we can see: a 60-bed Private Nursing Home, but this time around we know not for whom!  But the ‘Directors’ of CVHT are supremely confident that some care operator will be interested in taking it on once they’ve secured a planning consent to tuck beneath their bloated corporate bellies!

A residential accommodation block is still included but – quelle surprise – this time around it’s not for Surrey’s health-care workers because, so toxic has the Trust’s brand become, even the, grandly named, Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care Partnership and all the Health Honchos – not to mention Surrey County Council – have withdrawn their support for the commercial enterprise that has wrapped itself in a so-called  ‘charitable’ blanket!

Cranleigh residents need no reminding that this toxic endeavour has all come on the back of former parish-owned land sold for a measly £1, together with circa £2 million of public money that was earmarked for a hospital – with outpatient facilities, an X-Ray department, a day hospital with all its other facilities, and hospital beds.

So here hangs the eternal question? What and where is the community benefit? And, what are the people of Cranleigh and the eastern villages – all of whom dug deep into their pockets during this 20-year hike haul – getting in return for their buck?  Precious little bang, that’s for sure!

In fact, we’d go so far as to say, SOD ALL! when you read the letter from the Cranleigh Village Health trustees’ agents which we have included here:


The sharp-eyed amongst you will have noted the company address has not yet been changed to reflect the new information at Companies House. You also may have noticed that the residential accommodation – dressed up as health workers accommodation – is available to anyone at a market rent generating income of £90,000 per annum – providing an income stream for the -so-called ‘charity’ to fund ‘local health care priorities.’ Pull the other one it’s got bells on, is the phrase that comes to mind!  Wake up CVHT – the public doesn’t trust you.

Is there anyone left in the borough of Waverley that believes one single pledge this outfit makes?

Once again the trustees/directors are telling bare-faced lies and don’t even have the grace to blink or blush!  Even stooping so low as to blame village leaders for not allowing them to consult them.  The very same public body that 20 years ago was the major stakeholder in the project – handing over public land and which has repeatedly been fed on a diet of duff information.

Local residents may be surprised to learn that COVID-19 didn’t stop the Trust meeting the parish council. It was the Trust’s demands that scuppered any meeting.


A: Because the Trust wanted a meeting “in secret”, claiming ‘commercial confidentiality’ – and the now wide-awake parish councillors said they were happy to meet IN PUBLIC – so everyone, including donors, could hear what the Trust had to say! But were unanimously opposed to any meetings on “a supposed ‘community project’ behind closed doors… again!

You can read all about it here:

Cranleigh charity’s request for ‘ private meeting’ UNANIMOUSLY REFUSED.

So now – the Trust wants to put 16 community beds in a 60-bed private care home for fee-paying residents – which will be “means-tested” – their words, not ours – for recipients, who MAY find their fees subsidised by a commercial residential housing venture.




All we can say is this. If Waverley Planners consider that this is a ‘Community Benefit’ for the people who willingly dug deep into their pockets some providing as much as £25,000 a pop – when the old Cottage Hospital,  just up the road, is providing a wealth of new facilities – including X-Ray, ultrasound, maternity services, physio, et al to outpatients and could soon have an Urgent Treatment Centre – then they need to dig out their hard-hats and Kevlar jackets because local residents may well have rather a lot to say about it!

If ever there was an outrageous waste and misappropriation of public money and public land, this is it!  Where’s Panorama when you need it?!

About Us at Omnium Wealth.

Established in 2002 and employing a team of highly qualified and experienced consultants, Omnium Wealth is a wholly independent and privately owned financial planning business providing a structured investment strategy for individuals and their families.

We take the time to fully understand your needs and wishes, to help formulate a long term investment strategy, with the aim of maximising the opportunity to achieve your goals, without exposing you to unnecessary risk.

We take the stress out of your financial planning, but with real-time online access to your investments, ensure you know what is happening as often as you choose. Our approach allows you to focus on your career, family and future, while we take care of the details; minimising tax liabilities, protecting those closest to you but, most importantly, giving you the peace of mind to relax and enjoy what you have now.

The Waverley Web would like to thank Andy Webb (no association with the Waverley Web) of the Cranleigh Community Group for providing and helping us with much of this information.

**The Hydra monster has many heads. If you cut off one hydra head, two more would grow back in its place.

Only 7 days to pitch in to help Haslemere protect its green spaces.


There is massive opposition in the town of Haslemere to the inclusion of parts of its treasured green spaces being sacrificed on the alters of developers. Whilst sadly, other cherished green spaces have already gone under concrete all over our borough including Farnham and vast swathes of the land in the eastern villages around Cranleigh, Haslemere is calling for everyone’s help.

The Waverley Web has received the following information: But will ‘Your Waverley’ listen? Here’s what Waverley’s Deputy Leader thinks.

A Message from Kirsten Ellis – Independent Cllr for Haslemere.

Kirsten believes it is possible to combine pragmatic, necessary development and housing expansion with planning that does not sacrifice AONB in the town centre.

Dear Friends of our Green Spaces,

We only have 7 days to complete our responses to Waverley BC’s Local Plan Part 2. Some of us will already have got to it; others not. There’s still time…!

We in Haslemere who care as a community about protecting green spaces and biodiversity appeal for your support of Haslemere Town Council’s recommendations to Waverley Borough Council, especially in relation to our settlement boundary and in asking for the removal of the site allocation DS06 (Red Court) from LPP2.

Please submit your views to the LPP2 public consultation before the deadline of 29 January. Lack of response to this crucial LPP2 consultation at Reg 19 stage will be taken as consent and approval by WBC.

The overwhelming majority of Haslemere residents, as reflected in our Neighbourhood Plan and supported by last night’s vote at the Haslemere Town Council, object that WBC seeks to impose on us the site allocation of Red Court, a biodiverse-rich Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) which is also a wildlife corridor and home to precious wildlife and endangered species. 

A little background: Robert Hunter, the co-founder of the National Trust, was first Chairman of our parish council of Haslemere. This is the town he chose for his lifelong home, and from here, led his fight to protect open green spaces from development, beavering over policy to turn his dream of preserving nature for humanity into hard legal reality.  When, in non-Covid times, we sit on our now town council, we are between the same walls where he made many passionate arguments about the vital importance of protecting from development common land (later classed as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Greater Landscape Beauty) for future generations. Last year, with our new influx of Green, Lib-Dem and Independent Cllrs, we declared a biodiversity emergency as well as a climate change emergency.

The settlement boundary that HTC has approved (as opposed to the boundary which WBC seeks to impose) respects the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Haslemere residents who voted to protect and conserve the countryside encircling us in a ring of green and within the town centre. Only 8% were supportive of development in the category of the Red Court site, and 89% were against. 65% voted against allowing even small- scale developments building outside the settlement boundary. In the last elections, due to public anger over the perception by the community that their views on wishing to protect their environment were not being taken into proper consideration by the then-Tory majority, half the HTC Conservative Cllrs lost their seats, to be replaced by Lib Dems, Independents and Greens.

As well as HTC and Haslemere Vision, Haslemere Society, Natural England, Surrey Hills AONB, CRPE, Surrey Wildlife Trusts and Black Down and Hindhead Supporters of the National Trust, there were over 530 objections to Red Court from all over Haslemere and beyond when its planning application (WA 2020/1213) was submitted to WBC late last year (outcome pending).

Please find attached the statement made to WBC last October about this site’s regional importance by Tom Oliver, Professor of Applied Ecology at the University of Reading, Senior fellow on Defra Systems Research programme and member of European Environment Agency Scientific Committee.

Professor Oliver’s expert view is that WBC’s allocation of Red Court in its draft LPP2 is “not commensurate with the recent national pledge to safeguard biodiversity and WBC’s own policy declaration on the Climate Emergency which commits the Council to regard climate change as a serious threat that requires urgent action to reduce carbon emissions and conserve biodiversity. His assessment concluded: “In summary, there will be a substantial net biodiversity loss from this development on AONB and AONB-candidate AGLV land, which conflicts with both local and national policy targets.” When I asked Professor Oliver about why he felt it was important to speak out for protecting Red Court after he had studied all its characteristics and context, he said that he saw this site as an important AONB case study and that “the more precedent there is for developing on high biodiversity value AONB land, the easier it becomes for other cases.” 

Natural England has said developing on this site will have an adverse effect on the Wealden Heath and significant impact on the setting of the Surrey Hills. By its own assessment, Redwood has stated they intend to fell at least a further 40% of the mature trees on this land to develop the estate. 

WBC have a legislative duty of care to conserve biodiversity and ecology on their watch, and LPP2 is a generational blueprint affecting future development in Waverley for a decade that coincides with a major shift in awareness about how crucial it is to stabilise our climate and protect against biodiversity loss and stabilise our climate.


Can you help Haslemere folk?

WBC’s planners have said that having listened to Haslemere, they have committed to saving 95% of its AONB, AGLV and Greenbelt. But the AONB and AGLV sites they have removed from the proposed LPP2 in order to justify Red Court’s inclusion do not have the same high-biodiversity as Red Court and are listed (DS 11& 13 in LPP2 2018) as “without a significant landscape impact”. They have made it clear they want the Red Court allocation to be retained and say that they are not able to make up the required housing numbers without it, an assertion which is being challenged by HTC and Haslemere Vision. Research shows that our housing numbers can be met without needing to build on greenfield outside our Council-approved settlement boundary, and this is reflected in our Neighbourhood Plan.

If WBC gives a green light to this allocation, it will reward and enable a property speculator who knowingly purchased AONB/AGLV designated for protection — a rich ecological and biodiverse habitat — with the intention of destroying it for profit. WBC would not only be acting against national policy guidelines and their own Corporate Strategy but also acting against Haslemere’s Neighbourhood Plan, ignoring the democratically expressed wishes of the Haslemere community and its Council, a blow for Localism. Haslemere is currently the only town whose Neighbourhood Plan is not reflected in alignment with the proposed LPP2! It is important to note that LPP2 has achieved alignment with all other Waverley localities, a significant achievement. Come on Waverley, you are almost there, go the extra mile!

Haslemere’s Mayor John Robini, Surrey County Councillor Nikki Barton and the majority of HTC Councillors voted to reflect the views and aspirations of our community in a vote last night supporting the following response to WBC:


Our Neighbourhood Plan understands that Haslemere’s collective wealth lies in protecting its natural environment and biodiversity; much of the area is among some of the earliest National Trust land acquisitions and we are the gateway to the South Downs National Park. We value our treasured ‘Dark Sky’ status which would be eroded if we do not develop wisely. We also prize our town’s connections to the National Trust, and as the chosen home for writers and artists who sought inspiration in its natural beauty: Tennyson, George Eliot (who wrote Middlemarch here), Arthur Conan Doyle (who used Hindhead heath as his inspiration for The Hound of the Baskervilles) and the artist John Tyndall, and additionally we are proud of history for community-building dating back to the time of the Arts and Crafts movement. We are willing to accept higher density in our town centre and want to give preference to the allocation of brownfield sites first.

Personally, as someone who lives in close proximity to the Red Court site, I — like many who live in the heart of Haslemereappreciate the beauty and richness of its nature, birdlife and biodiversity, which Tennyson walked past on his daily walks. But for anyone concerned about the preservation of AONB at a national as well as a local level, it’s not difficult to see the allocation of this site as a proverbial canary in the coal mine.

If you care about protecting the Surrey countryside for future generations, please state that DS06 (Red Court) is not a suitable site allocation. People, not just locally, but nationally, will look at how WBC behave in relation to the duty of care of such high biodiversity land. 

Respond here:


Kirsten Ellis (PhD)

Independent Councillor, Haslemere South

Please find these additional links to Haslemere community and residents’ association websites for further information:




WBC has a legislative duty of care to conserve biodiversity and ecology on their watch, and LPP2 is a generational blueprint affecting future development in Waverley for a decade that coincides with a major shift in awareness about how crucial it is to stabilise our climate and protect against biodiversity loss.

Did Surrey County Council celebrate National Pothole Day?


The residents of Waverley need no prompting to vilify Surrey County Council for the state of many of our borough’s roads. In fact, it is driving many of us around the bend!

However, with election fever now building in the county, now might be the right time to remind our sitting councillors of just how bad some of our roads are? Or perhaps ask some of the wannabe councillors to take action on this highway curse – that is getting worse!

Pothole pic Hold on Jack

Gather around your nearest road crater and make a wish.

Here’s one pothole filled in by workmen in Cranleigh High Street!

The UK’s road quality ranks 37th in the world, closely followed by Rwanda in 39th place. Our potholed roads are now becoming a national obsession and a national disgrace.

Potholes have become a blight, and even worse, a very real danger – as playing dodgems is the latest sport of many a motorist. Lorry, car drivers, cycle and motorcyclists regularly weave their way around huge potholes, putting both their lives and the safety of oncoming traffic at risk. 

During the pandemic, we were encouraged to get on our bikes and 1.3million of us did just that. However, some cyclists are dying in the attempt to get fit on our potholed roads – not just the bumps, broken limbs, scrapes and life-changing injuries but in the past five years, 250 of us have died as a direct result of potholes!

We have heard from many of our followers that the A281 Horsham to Guildford Road in the east of the borough is an absolute disgrace. it says something about the state of Britain’s roads that we now have a special day dedicated just for potholes on the Nation’s calendar every year!

Are you aware in the Budget last year Rishi Sunak pledge £1.6 billion to fix potholes?

With the pandemic forcing people to stay at home and fewer cars on the roads, Surrey has the perfect opportunity to crack on with repairs.

While we’re all paying our taxes, taxes set to increase and now we are staying indoors as much possible, councils must do everything they can to annihilate these pothole atrocities and save our lives and our money?

So what can be done? As well as scheduled inspections, local authorities accept reports of defects from the public. If there’s a particular pothole you have a gripe with, we thoroughly recommend logging on to Surrey County Council’s website and report it. However, we did – having lost yet another tyre, but received no compensation whatsoever, as the pothole had not been previously reported. 




Dr Povey prepares for Surrey elections by sprinkling stardust.


When times are hard – a little faith, trust and pixie dust are always welcome – and the county councillor for Cranleigh & Ewhurst has just discovered his wand.

The councillor – who has neither been seen nor heard for most of the past four years has suddenly emerged. Just in time to slide back into the seat, he intends to reclaim at the May county council elections?
He recently positioned himself outside the Cranleigh recycling centre. A centre that has been closed most of the year, and which now opens only a couple of days each week. A move that has sent residents of the eastern villages schlepping over to the Witley Recycling Centre.

Then he began trumpeting the Surrey county council community fund.  A  £100 million Surrey County Council giveaway, or should it be called bribe? 

You can read all about it here:

He then did a run – presumably his usual morning run, along the Downslink checking the fallen trees. 
“As a result of recent high winds, a number of trees were blown down and blocking the Downslink. I ran down the section from Cranleigh to Baynards Station this morning and pleased to see the Surrey County Council Countryside Access Team have cleared this section. It was a beautiful sunny morning for a run but it is very muddy in places.”

Here’s what Cranleigh’s Little Povey says:

The Surrey County Council community fund (your money) is now live on the SCC website. This is a large capital fund for community projects that residents can suggest. You can comment on the suggestions that are put up. There are two that have been suggested so far for Cranleigh, a Biodiversity and Sustainability Education Centre and a Mentoring Programme. Please take a look. Suggestions can be made in outline first and a full business case can follow later.

So what’s his next giveaway? Don’t hold your breath… 

In the caption below County Cllr Andrew Povey reveals the electric charging points that villagers won’t be plugging in to – and asks to hear residents’ views?

Views? Nil Point – comes to mind. Is it time to move over Dr Povey?

The electric charging points that Cranleigh & Villages – won’t be plugging in to!

Come on Waverley residents? Pile in to help Haslemere.


The public consultation exercise on ‘Your Waverley’s Local Plan Part 2 ends on January 29th – just nine days time.
Included in the plan are sites allocated for development in the borough – some highly controversial – others not so. It also includes a section on Gipsy & Traveller sites – where these should be situated and the number of pitches. 
Residents in Haslemere are claiming that ‘Your Waverley’ has acted on other Neighbourhood Plans in the borough except Haslemere’s by including the controversial ‘Red Court’ – pictured above –  in their allocation of sites. Residents claim by doing this they are ignoring the wishes of both the Haslemere Town Council and the local community.
So with time running out the people of Haslemere are asking everyone to ensure their voice is heard before January 29 – when the consultation closes.
Last night at Waverley’s Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee – head of planning Zac Ellwood told members the response to the consultation – so far – had been light with very few responses. However, he expected a rush of comments in the days leading up to its closure.
Outlining the timetable, after responses had been logged and reviewed, in April/May the final plan, which could include minor modifications, would go to the Secretary of State for examination in public by an Inspector. If sound it would become law between November and February 2022.  However, there could be further delays of several months if there were major issues around certain allocated sites.
I am not second guessing, but there has been a lot of debate in Haslemere about sites put forward, and we have to look carefully at the evidence.”
Many residents of Haslemere are up in arms at the proposed loss of this an important green space in their town and have been campaigning for several years to stop development there. Coming to a greenfield in Haslemere soon?
Mr Ellwood said Neighbourhood Plans for other areas including Chiddingfold and Dunsfold was progressing. However, Cranleigh’s Plan had been delayed as a site which it had relied upon would not now come forward for development, so its plan was at a different stage in its progress.
Officers faced a huge amount of work over the coming months, and this was the “calm before the storm.” Staff would need to move fast to meet the time-scale – stressing the adoption of Local Plan Part 2 was vital to show that Waverley had a 5-year land supply.
Developers want to build a phased development (50 homes in phase 1) of 180 homes on The Red Court site off Scotland Lane. Developers Redwood plans to build many more if/when it gets the go-ahead in an Area of Great Landscape Value and Outstanding Natural Beauty on the edge of the South Downs National Park Scotland Lane/Red Court, (AGLV/bordering AONB land, part of the biodiversity-rich Wealden Heath.)
They claim Waverley would be acting in blatant contravention of its own NFFP Government policy. Over 500 objection have been made – however, the Waverley Web wonders if these have been directed at the Consultation on LP2? Hence the call to make their voices heard NOW before it is too late!
Despite 89% of residents being opposed to the plan – three Tory Conservative councillors voted for the Red Court site to be included in LP2.


Have trolley – will travel for ‘Your Waverley.’


You could trawl through Waverley Council’s  Overview & Scrutiny Value for Money Committee Agenda for its meeting this week – however, you could lose the will to live! So here at the Waverley Web one of our blokes with nothing better to do trawled through until he got to page 190 where he found this?  So there you have it – we, the ratepayers bought a supermarket on 1st December – just in time for Christmas. ‘ Your Waverley’ has won the Supermarket Sweep.


I’ve been shopping – says ‘Your Waverley’s Deputy Leader Paul Follows.


However, thankfully we have this information posted on the Waverley Web comments page from Deputy `Leader ~Paul Follows – who is as good as his word about being “transparent honest and open with us” – the voting fodder.

Here’s what he had to say:

‘So let’s try and answer some of the questions:’

1) We (WBC) own the freehold;
2) the tenant is M&S in West Wickham (specifically an M&S Food)
3) we have factored in their plans when the current lease is up for renewal.

More detail now available in the public domain, please see the VfM reports pack on the WBC website for the meeting of that committee next week.

So our sticking a pin in the map wasn’t far wrong – though our guys first thought the supermarket was in Hampshire, but then Kent.

Reading other reports of meetings to be held this week it is quite obvious that unless councils make investments like these to generate further income – in a few years time they will go BUST! It would appear this year it gets NO Government grant. So we’re home alone folks!

 This is due to central government’s year by year plan, to strip local authorities  (especially Borough and district councils) of proper funding.

 There is no doubt that some councils – including several in Surrey – have overstepped the bounds of prudent housekeeping, but Waverley has restrained itself with the exception of Brighwells which is funded by circa £53m of Surrey County Council’s pension-fund money. A move which scared the previous conservative administration witless, but which, despite many warnings, it carried on regardless. Only time will tell if Farnham’s Brightwells is a big golden egg or a big white elephant? It hopes to open the development in July – with the Reel Cinema opening in August.

The new administration with Mark Merryweather at the helm as Portfolio Holder for Finance has struck a different tone completely with open and honest accounting. The supermarket investment mentioned is a four-year contract to generate funds to balance the books that have been stripped by the pandemic (HM Government is not keeping its promises to cover losses of revenue due to the lockdowns, despite pledges to the contrary) Communities Minister Robert Jenrick promises councils will not be out of pocket by Covid-19. But ‘ Your Waverley’ is not so sure.

‘Your Waverley’ has won the Supermarket Sweep.


 The residents here on planet Waverley are now the proud owners of a circa £7million pound supermarket.

Yipee! Guess we have always wanted to own one rather than playing dodge the unmasked customer in a bid to outwit COVID! 

We know not where said supermarket actually is? So here at the Waverley Web, we stuck a pin in a map of the Waverley environs and it landed somewhere in the middle of Kent. We wonder  – is that county in Waverley’s area of “economic influence?” 
Working from home for our team is no fun – so pinning the tail on the supermarket – sounded like a great new board game. Came in handy whilst home-schooling the kids!
Neither do we know who the supermarket retailer is?  – Could be Tesco ‘every little helps’ or ‘Live Well for Less and  Taste the Difference at Sainsbury’s?’ Or perhaps we could “Live a Lidl – because every Lidl helps?’ Maybe, it is Morrisons or Azda – but our money is on – ‘It’s not just Food its M & S Food’  because Waverley loves the brand as it is pinning all its hopes on the brand as its key stakeholder in Farnham’s Blightwells project?

When ‘Your Waverley’s’  Special Executive met in November – (we have included a link so you can hear it for yourselves.) Or, perhaps to be more precise, we should say, you can hear the bit “YW’ wants you to hear – the remainder was in private. Not everyone was entirely convinced that entering the supermarket stakes with cash straight out of the council till – was a good idea.

Here’s a link to that debate, including a bit of a rant by Godalming Cllr Steve Cosser who outlined his numerous concerns.

Could ‘ Your Waverley’ be entering the Supermarket sweep?

He was surprised the Executive had even considered spending £7m + £400,000 in fees to acquire a supermarket out of town? Even more, so that it came from internal borrowing. How could a council that was pleading poverty consider finding such a large sum of money – and how much more was buried in its accounts?

He claimed the proposal was an abandonment of the council’s strategy to only invest in an “area of economic influence,”

We have heard from a few residents that are not entirely delighted with the prospect of pushing the trolley full of public money out into – we know not where. Perhaps someone soon will tell us where the Supermarket is – so we can shop there, once the lock-down is lifted of course, so we can boost our own investment income?
You can listen to the debate here:


Here’s what one of our followers wants to know?

Special Executive Meeting on the 20th Nov 2020 approximately 21 mins into the meeting. Councillor Steve Cosser quotes on record to the proposed purchase of a supermarket (not local) at a cost of £7 million pounds and fees of £.4 million. Why would the remaining councillors attending the same meeting as Councillor Cosser not object after his good argument of funds being used elsewhere? Everything about this deal is suspicious use of public funds is it not?

My questions would be?
1. Who advised them?
2. Who is proposing to do the legal work and who is connected to who (good work if you can get it?)
3. Do they think the taxpaying residents would be happy with the decision made by the councillors?
4. Could this be pensions pocketing exercise rather than the needs of the inhabitants?
5. Who in the council has ever paid more in legal fees and costs for an asset (their homes?)


Don’t despair – there’s help out there in ‘Your Waverley.’


NEWSFLASH – Vaccinations began today at CRANLEIGH VILLAGE HALL.

Paul Follow.  Deputy Leader of ‘Your Waverley- ‘Keeping in Touch.’

Good morning everyone.
The vaccination programme is clearly progressing, albeit a bit slower than I think we all want it to be. My understanding is that there is a shortage of storage/vials/needles etc and this is as much of an issue as the vaccine itself (but that this is also being addressed).
I am receiving regular updates from Public Health England, the Royal Surrey and a number of local GP’s.
Lots of issues about travel for vaccines. Waverley BC has made numerous suggestions on this – but this is almost wholly being managed by Central Government.
I would urge our MP to encourage Central Gov. to let Local Gov. help with this. It is far better placed to advise on suitability (these will be unknown places on a map to most MP’s and civil servants).
I want to thank residents for their response to the waste collection issues and temporary suspension of the green waste collection and for their fantastic comments about the staff.
Despite all the regulations – COVID enforcement powers are not the clearest in law.
For residents, a basic golden rule is this: police can enforce people, borough environmental health can enforce premises.
Please keep local and use common sense. I won’t say any more than that on exercise.
The government did not mandate the closure of parks. The borough can do this – but, like many residents, there is a very real debate about the mental health and wellbeing of children. If you are using the parks, again – please use caution and keep to the published guidance.
Just to finish, thank you to all residents, key workers and our council staff for everything you are doing.
I will continue to update as more information comes my way.
Please also see below a list of useful contacts ⤵️
Cllr Paul Follows
Deputy Leader, Waverley Borough Council
Leader, Godalming Town Council



Subsidised school meals – v- subsidised MP’s meals?


Which would you choose?

Actually yes Sir! But possibly this for the next five days?

Perhaps a highly-paid final salary pensioned bureaucrat will tell the Surrey children who receive these lunch parcels, how they split that banana and the orange into five? And who eats a baked potato of that size for lunch? Really, – you couldn’t make it up? Here at the WW, we have calculated that the food in this picture – which we understand includes bottled water – what’s wrong with the tap – comes to around £8 with careful shopping – the remaining £7 of the £15 provided by us, the taxpayer, goes in – yes, you guessed – administrative costs.  However, we should point out that parents we have spoken to, do not wish to appear ungrateful, saying ‘every little helps,’ and there is ‘no taste to nothing!’

However, having watched the television coverage, we find it difficult to understand why some of the mothers who are bitterly complaining are also sporting acrylic nails at thirty pounds a time – plus 2/3 week weekly infills at £15! Parents too have a responsibility to recognise that feeding their families must be their top priority.

On 21st October 2020, MPs voted down Marcus Rashford’s bid to extend free school meals over half term.

The general sentiment was that:

“Conservative ideas of a small state, individual responsibility and upholding the value in the institution of the family should be maintained”

i.e. the state (taxpayers) should not fund these meals and families should be held responsible.

If this is the case, is it not hypocritical to expect the state to subsidise MPs meals in parliamentary canteens? Surely, if they cannot afford meals on their generous salaries, their family should help to pay for them?  Or perhaps we should be funding similar sized food parcels?

Perhaps Surrey County Council’s Press Office will explain how they account – to the last penny – for these meagre rations. Please, Sirs, we want more?

Paul Follows, The Deputy Leader of Waverley Borough Council, is seeking an explanation from the county council and would like to hear from anyone affected at Paul.Follows@Waverley.gov.uk 



NEWSFLASH! The Hon Angie has dumped TWITTER!




How on earth will we all manage without Guildford Cranleigh & Village MP Angela Richardson’s daily Tweets now she has turned her back on us? 

Our Cranleigh correspondent reports he almost choked on his cornflakes and needed a double espresso to calm the tightening in his chest when he heard Angie’s love affair with Twitter had ended today – and all because of Trump.

Damn the man!  Just goes to show when an elephant flaps its ears in Mar -a-Lago, the ripple effect across the pond and all that …  Yeah, we know it’s all about a butterfly’s wing but, seriously, who can liken Trump to a butterfly?!

Anyway, we digress, now the Hon Angie has thrown all her toys out of the pram to defend The Donald’s right to Tweet. She has long been a fan of the man, believing that her first love – The Boris – and The US President had many of the same qualities. A while back she stood up for The Dom – and now it’s for The Don!

Any friend of Boris is a friend of mine?

Ah well – we will all just have to grin and bear it – which certainly beats sucking it up!  As for the long-suffering residents of the eastern villages’ MP, they will just have to make do with our very own sanctimonious Jeremy from now on – yeah, that’s the one, the man who, after what felt like a lifetime in charge of our NHS, left us so ill-prepared for a pandemic, our NHS heroes and heroines were reduced to wearing bin-liners whilst they waited on imports of PPE, sourced at vast expense offshore!  We hear from our moles over there in the east that the Hon Angie was getting a good deal of grief on Twitter – some calling her “hapless and inefficient,” so dumping it was a relief.

 So how on earth will we all manage without  Angie’s daily Tweets? Not that we have read much about her job as PPS to the hapless education chief Gavin Williamson – so no loss there then? 

Lib Dem former PMC for Guildford & Villages – who is still Tweeting!

But fear, not folks, Zoe Franklin her Lib Dem running-mate for the top job says she will still be there to inform you and answer any questions you may have about all things, Guildford & Cranleigh villages.

Here’s the response you will get: Don’t write to the Hon Angie – ring Annie Milton?

And there are lots more criticising Angie for her lack of information. Here are just a few of the excruciating Tweets we will all miss. Mainly congratulating colleagues, the PM and the Downing Street Cat.

So there you have it. One of our Waverley MP’s spends most of her time ‘ congratulating’ anyone and everyone – while the other one…

Marshals needed to aid the vaccination centres.


In the link below are the latest COVID infection rates for ‘Your Waverley.’ Village by village town by town. There is also an opportunity to volunteer as a marshal this week at COVID vaccination centres.

But here’s what many people believe Boris should be telling the Nation.

“So, here we go again”! I’m on your TV telling you things are going to be shi* for a while and yes that’s what I’m doing.
I’m stopping you from going out, from seeing your friends and loved ones. Do you think that makes me a bad person? Do you know what?…. this job isn’t easy. All I’m doing is trying to please you lot and stop you all dying at the same time.
I give you rules, you break them, ease things a bit, you take the pi**. You are all a bunch of ungrateful, selfish human beings and I’m now at the point where I’m only inflicting more rules because you idiots are putting ridiculous pressure on the NHS, by ignoring the things I have asked you nicely to do.
You all think you are scientists, doctors and experts? You are not & neither am I. But I AM taking advice from the best in this country and doing my best to please you all.
So stop being so bloody selfish…. yes it’s boring, it’s getting old, but it won’t go away if you all continue to throw your toys out of the pram.
Grow up, take some responsibility for yourself and your so-called loved ones and do as you are asked!!


Even if you don’t give a damn about yourself or others. Let’s give this poor man a break?

Vaccination Centres at Glive in Guildford and Cranleigh Village Hall are going live from Tuesday.  They will be open 8am to 8pm seven days a week and need volunteers to act as marshals.  There will be a lot of people arriving for appointments at 5 minute intervals throughout the day so marshals are needed to make everything run smoothly.
Please share this link with anybody you think might be willing to help.  Any furloughed friends getting bored for instance. The link enables people to sign up to the shifts they want to do straight away – they just have to check a box saying they will abide by the volunteer agreement.
  There are 168 volunteer shifts a week so that’s a lot of people needed. 
Carol Dunnett
Chief Officer
Direct Dial 01483 957020
Voluntary Action South West Surrey
Supporting the voluntary & community sector in Guildford and Waverley
39 Castle Street | Guildford | Surrey | GU1 3UQ | 01483 504626
Registered Charity Number: 1116293 | Registered Company Number: 05841344 | Registered Office: 39 Castle Street | Guildford | GU1 3UQ
Here’s the volunteer agreement.Volunteer Marshall Job Description
Find out how your town or village is affected.

Are lockdown rules unfair on Waverley’s independents?


Gifts galore at Alison Townsend’s store in Farnham’s popular Lion & Lamb Yard.


Is it any wonder that independent shops across the Waverley borough are struggling?

Major supermarkets,  pharmacy chains and gardening centres continue to flourish whilst hundreds of our smaller independent?

Most of us who shopped regularly and supported our independent traders is now during lockdown – forced to buy our cards – birthday and anniversary gifts from major supermarket and garden centre chains, which continue to trade as they either sell food, pharmacy or garden products.

Waverley’s towns and villages are proud of their small independent shops, many of which are owned by local residents, who reflect the originality and character of the town or village where they were founded.

In Farnham, the pandemic has hit our Elphicks store. A business in which its owners have invested heavily in recent years. Another is David Manns in Cranleigh. A family business which has been going strong since 1887 and is now struggling and during `October entered into a (CVA) voluntary arrangement with its creditors.

Here’s a statement we received from one of the most popular independent departmental stores in Surrey.

Statement from the Directors of David Mann & Sons Ltd.

‘Due to the recent challenging retail environment coupled with the impact of COVID-19 the directors decided to take early and decisive action to seek advice on the options for the company to enable it to continue trading, survive the pandemic and trade strongly thereafter.

As a result, the directors appointed advisors to assist them with the company’s restructuring, to address legacy creditors and future proof the company in this current economic climate.

Following the guidance provided, the decision was taken to propose a company voluntary arrangement (CVA).

The CVA proposal will enable David Mann & Sons Limited, with appropriate professional support, to provide a mechanism which will allow the company to have a more profitable and flexible business structure thus making sure we have adapted in these unprecedented times appropriately.

We can confirm that David Mann & Sons Ltd. is not in liquidation and look forward to reopening just as soon as this current lockdown allows.’

So come on Waverley residents – let’s all pitch in and help save David Manns? If we don’t it will probably, like so many other businesses,  end up as a block of residential flats?

The Farnham Society, together with Chambers of Commerce around Waverley are lobbying their MPs. However, in the present COVID climate, it is difficult to make a case for opening smaller independents in the dire situation we are in with rising infection rates and hospital admissions rising.
So – how do we help our independent businesses?
When normality returns – and it will – it is then that we return to our village butcher, our baker and candlestick maker. Because they are part of what we are and where we live. They are what makes our towns and villages – and our borough of Waverley special. They need us and we need them.
So let’s do it?

Godalming’s Balloon Fairy lifting spirits in ‘Your Waverley.’


There is absolutely no doubt that the latest lockdown announcement will have a huge impact on many people’s mental health.
If you need to talk to someone, there is support available
However – remember the following: Here’s a message from the Godalming Balloon Company. This is just one of the small local businesses in Waverley that operated throughout the March 2020 lockdown and is still going strong. A brownie and a balloon – could lift all our spirits.
Oooooh if a small business ever needed you, it’s now!
Hours may have to be a little flexible (I have two smalls to homeschool) but on every level, I will ensure balloons are received…after all, who doesn’t need a 🎈🧚‍♀️ in their life?
PLUS: My roomie @nellys.bakes does a glorious selection of cakes and brownies!


Latest detailed Covid data for ‘Your Waverley.’


The Waverley Web has been studying the very informative Exel- spreadsheet provided to Waverley councillors and the public by Farnham Residents’ Cllr Jerry Hyman. We have linked it into the page below as it shows in detail, town by town and village by village the spread of COVID-19 – 31 December.

 We believe that any light that can be shone upon the rates of infection by any Waverley councillor has to be appreciated by the public. We found the in-depth statistical information very useful, as it revealed the hotspots in the borough. We have heard on private e-mails that many Farnham and some Cranleigh and eastern villages residents have found it very helpful. Let’s hope it makes us all very wary of what we do and how we do it -doesn’t it? We are not aware that on the official WBC website there such detailed information. Well done Cllr Hyman for the hard work this must have entailed.


Farnham Residents’ Cllr. for Firgrove.

Attached is my spreadsheet of the latest PHE Covid case data for the Waverley and surrounding MSOAs, covering tests to Boxing Day.
Farnham, and particularly the North Farnham areas of Upper Hale, Hale, Heath End, Weybourne and Badshot Lea, do appear to be suffering due to spread from Aldershot and perhaps visitors from Guildford (and the train connection to Woking, a recent hotbed of infection).   
South Godalming is bucking the trend, being the only Waverley MSOA with a 7-day rolling Case Rate less than 200.  
Of course, the south Godalming folk should not rest on their laurels, as the mutant virus may have since caught up with them.  The cases reported today are people infected between 7 and 10-14 days ago, and with the effect of pre-Christmas Tier 4 visitors and Christmas Day family mixing yet to be seen, the current situation may be somewhat different. 

You will see the light orange and darker orange hotspots for the period under Cllr Jerry’s microscope a few days earlier. These include – Farnham – to be expected in view of shoppers flooding in from Tier 4 areas when Waverley remained in Tier 2. However, the higher infection rate in small villages such as Witley and Wormley – are not easily explained. Could this be as a result of schools – such as `King Edwards – or perhaps Surrey County Council’s decision to send everyone from the eastern villages to the Witley dump? Cranleigh’s recycling centre is only open for certain materials on a Monday and at weekends so it’s off to Witley they all are forced to go?

The infection rate in Cranleigh is growing, as is Godalming where its popular shops had a burst of activity shortly before Christmas.

Waverley COVID-19 Cases 29 Dec, 3 sheets

The latest on schools in Waverley is as follows:

As far as I can see, this is the situation:
-Primary Schools- January 4th
-Secondary Schools- Years 11 & 13 January 11th.
 All other years January 18th
Just to add, this is a government decision and not a council decision.
Cllr Paul Follows
Deputy Leader, Waverley Borough Council
Leader, Godalming Town Council

Judging by some of the comments coming from junior doctors – remember the guys and gals our MP Jeremy Hunt had a fight with a while back when he was Secretary of State for Health? Here’s what one told us.

“Just spoke with a junior doctor. She’s broken. Physically and mentally exhausted. Her hospital is on the verge of not being able to cope. Strongly believes that without public support and people sticking to the rules the NHS isn’t going to be able to save you.” #Covid19UK

And if the message below doesn’t keep us all here in Waverley away from meeting up with your friends or family tonight, for a New Year’s Eve celebration – nothing will!

‘Your Waverley’s’ very own Trump on a roll again…


SW Surrey’s  Hunt chump will never get over losing out to Boris the Bulldozer will he?

The former UK health secretary has proposed taxing the over-40s to cover the costs of social care for the elderly.

He says “it’s now – or never” – to fix a social care system that is broken. Hunt broke ranks on Tuesday to propose a “tax surcharge to people over 40,” a measure introduced in Germany and Japan. He said the taxes were “only a small amount extra, but as you get older you start to pay a little bit more.”

Buy to Let landlord and multi-millionaire MP Jeremy Hunt who came under fire for setting up a buy to let property business – and snapping up seven flats in one town.
Mr Hunt has set up Mare Pond Properties with his wife Lucia and used it to buy the apartments in the upmarket marina Ocean Village in Southampton.
The Cabinet minister says the money he makes from the business will be used to make donations to charities and good causes. 

Our MP Jeremy Hunt, Conservative chair of parliament’s health and social care committee, called for “boldness” from prime minister Boris Johnson, his rival for the party leadership last year. Because of course, he knows what the word boldness means – having upset every young junior doctor in the country on his watch – the very same guys who are now heading-up the teams fighting COVID-19. Some of whom have lost their lives in the process!

Hunt says  Boris should ‘seize the opportunity’ created by his large majority in the Commons and the public mood in the wake of the coronavirus crisis.

“I just think the year after the pandemic, if we don’t do it now, it really is now or never. Because the public has never understood better how important our care system is.

Wake up, Mr Hunt! The public knows only too well how important the care-system is? They have been paying for their elderly parents and other family members down to their last penny. What rubbish you talk about down to their last £23,000 down to their last couple of pounds more like!

Under your watch, many of your residents were refused any NHS contribution towards their care, despite needing nursing-care input, for long-term health conditions whist in nursing homes. Appeals ignored, as families dug deeper into their own pockets. And now you suggest, they should be taxed more forevermore?

Mr Hunt says the current funding model for social care is widely seen as unfit for purpose, leaving huge bills for many who need care and significant pressure on cash-strapped local authorities and providers.

Perhaps he hasn’t read the new model of care proposed by Surrey Heartlands NHS Trust. The Trust that runs healthcare on his patch in Waverley?

Perhaps he should read it now? Because this is what the local health bodies have told Cranleigh Parish Council what health care will look like in the future.

Having discussed your concerns with colleagues across the Guildford and Waverley Integrated Care Partnership (ICP), we can now more clearly explain our joint position on our future plans.

‘Whilst we recognise the importance of local nursing home provision for those who need it, because of the rapidly changing nature of the way care is provided in the community, it is simply not possible for the CCG or SCC to make a firm commitment to purchasing a specific number of beds for NHS-funded care in the future. As an ICP it is our responsibility to ensure the best health outcomes for our local communities; with a Parish Council Meeting 17 December 2020 Page 5 of 7 significant shift away from bed-based care for older people – due to patients having better outcomes if they are recovering or being cared for in their own place of residence – we will continue to invest in enhanced community services and support to allow more people to be cared for at home wherever appropriate. This investment includes the creation of community-based multidisciplinary teams, aligned with the local geographies of our Primary Care Networks, creating a much more personalised and locally-based service. These expanded neighbourhood teams will include GPs, pharmacists, district nurses, community geriatricians and Allied Health Professionals e.g. occupational therapists. This approach means that community-based care in Guildford and Waverley will be in line with the NHS Long Term Plan and is where we want to focus much of our future investment for older people.

In conclusion, whilst there will always be a need for some level of NHS funded care home beds, the landscape is rapidly changing; in line with the NHS Long Term Plan, we are putting much more focus on community-based care, supporting people in their own homes for as long as possible, which is evidenced to improve outcomes and quality of care. We appreciate that the position explained earlier this year was different and we again apologise for this. We are, however, obliged to consider our current operating position and ensure our plans are aligned with best practice evidence and national strategies.

In light of this, we consider that it is not, therefore, appropriate for us to make a long-term commitment to purchasing additional bed-based care as this would be contrary to our overall direction of travel as a local health and care system. In the meantime, as I’m sure you will appreciate, our focus now has to be on responding to the pressing demands of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. We hope this helps to clarify our current position more clearly.

He says efforts to fix the system have repeatedly hit a wall, with ministers shying away from reform as many proposals have sparked a fierce backlash.

So says the longest-serving Health Minister in the history of this country?

Former health secretary Jeremy Hunt who this week proposed a tax on the over-40s to fund social care.

READ MORE: UK chancellor Rishi Sunak fuels tax hike speculation

Hunt broke ranks on Tuesday to propose a “tax surcharge to people over 40,” a measure introduced in Germany and Japan. He said the taxes were “only a small amount extra, but as you get older you start to pay a little bit more.”

The MP, a cabinet member for much of the past decade including as health secretary between 2012 and 2018, said both countries had avoided “public pushback” with the measures.

“I think the biggest battle now is with the Treasury because the sums of money are eye-watering. We were even more bankrupt as a country after the Second World War and then we had the imagination and vision to set up the NHS, and I think this is another 1948 moment.”

Johnson promised to “fix the crisis in social care once and for all” on the steps of Downing Street in his first speech as prime minister last year.

Oh, dear! As we said before – Hunt’s having a Trump moment!

If you were with others on Christmas Day you may be in for a shock.


If you were mixing on Christmas Day then this is really important as cases of the virus in Surrey continue to grow.
It may shock you to know that if you’ve been in contact with someone that has COVID-19, you will be most infectious around New Year’s Eve or Hogmanay as it is known in Scotland. You also may have no idea you’ve even caught it!
Hospitals are now under extreme pressure with some London hospitals reporting that they are running out of oxygen.  They cannot believe they are in the same position they were in early on in the pandemic!

There have been 825 new cases of coronavirus  recorded across Surrey in the last 24 hours, according to figures released on Monday (December 28).

The largest number of new cases was recorded in Reigate and Banstead with 116, followed by Guildford with 106, 81 in Tandridge and 75 in the borough of Waverley.

Latest NHS England data reveals another 14 new Covid-19 related deaths – six at Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust, seven at Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust and one at Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust. 

One nurse follower has asked?
If the NHS is at breaking point, why has the government abandoned the £100m Nightingale Hospital at London’s Excel centre? Department of Health couldn’t even tell us what had happened to it, a week or so ago!
The Waverley Web understands – there simply aren’t enough staff! And as we write, many nursing staff, who have not been vaccinated, are testing positive, and are therefore forced to leave their posts and their patients.

There was a little Spider – his name we do not know.



William is a spider – with a team of three or four?

He’s tucked behind the curtains and the door.

He moves about with stealth and ease – and once a year –

 with others – moves into Waverley’s Christmas Trees.

Among the twinkling lights, William and the others – spin their glistening webs – 

No-one sees them do it! – They are all in bed.

They cover most of Waverley – despite the fallen trees,

Exhausted by their efforts – they fall upon their knees.

Avoiding all the diggers and HGV’s, William made his way back to Farnham,

to his favourite Christmas tree.

It’s there that you will find him like a shining a star.

So – when next you see a spider   – be grateful, jump about and shout with glee,

Cos it isn’t every day there’s a homemade spider star – atop your Christmas tree.

Tears for Tiers in ‘Your Waverley’


By now it will not have escaped your notice that Waverley has now moved from Tier 2  to Tier 4 which has no doubt brought many of our residents close to tears!

Everything you need to know – and instructions you should heed are in the link below:  This includes a message from John Ward, the Leader of Waverley Borough Council 


However gloomy you may feel- and however anxious you are about the future. Just take a moment to reflect on what Christmas Day 1914 was like for these guys.

Let us all hope for a brighter 2021. The shortest day is now over, minute by minute light will return and Spring is not so far away now? So let’s hang on in there. Let’s get through Brexit, get vaccinated and let 2020 become a salutary lesson on the importance of Infection Control.

Here at the Waverley Web, we wish you all a very Happy Christmas and a healthy, safe and happier New Year.




COVID-19 is accelerating across the South East – including Surrey.


Mayor of Godalming Penny Rivers out and about with the town’s Round Table recently.


Follow this link to hear messages from Waverley’s Deputy leader Paul Follows and Penny Rivers Mayor of Godalming on COVID-2020.


The speed of COVID’s acceleration is spelt out in stark data on HSJ today which shows the number of COVID positive inpatients in English hospitals rose 2,256 to 16,183 over the seven days to 19 December.

The 16.2 per cent increase compares to one of 7.4 per cent in the previous seven-day period, underlining how the pandemic is speeding up.

If this rate is maintained, the English NHS will end 2020 with approximately the same number of COVID positive inpatients as at the peak of the pandemic on 12 April.

The Health Service paints  the following picture for the regions:

  • London: Responsible for the largest rise in patients, up 817 (39 per cent) to 2,909 on the 12 December figure.
  • Eastern: Inpatient numbers jumped 536 (38 per cent) to 1,943, the highest ever total recorded in the region.
  • South East: A rise of 376 inpatients (19.3 per cent) to 1,943, the highest total recorded since 20 April.
  • South West: The fourth region to see a dramatic increase in inpatient numbers, up 208 (24.7 per cent) to 1,051, a figure last recorded on 17 April.
  • Midlands: The region with the highest number of COVID positive inpatients. The number rose 7 per cent to a level equivalent to that on 14 April.
  • North East and Yorkshire: Rose 4.5 per cent to 2,413. The region reported a similar number on 9 April.
  • North West: Inpatient numbers remained flat for a fortnight. Its 2,253 inpatients is very similar to the number recorded on 28 April in the region.

WORRyIng. No Plan B for The Big C!

The ending of contracts with the independent sector has put cancer surgery in the capital under threat, writes Ben Clover on HSJ today.

COVID admissions have put pressure on services that can no longer turn to alternative providers. Although many of Waverley’s patients receive their cancer care at The Royal Surrey Hospital, some are also in the care of London hospitals.

The HSJ discovered that NHS England ended contracts with HCA, The London Clinic and the Cromwell Hospital at the end of August, after concerns about underutilisation.

Under the previous deal with the private sector, rules were in place to make sure low-priority private patients were not treated ahead of NHS patients who needed surgery urgently.

HCA and The Cromwell have confirmed the contracts were ended in August and were not renewed. 

HSJ understands NHSE, under pressure from the Treasury, was not willing to pay the prices asked by the three private providers.

Since the start of the Pandemic private hospitals received millions in Government funding despite most extra capacity going unused. The NHS contract with the Nuffield Hospital in Guildford has ended. Around two-thirds of beds in private hospitals like The Nuffield in Guildford and Mount Alvernia were not used during the summer. However, the Independent Provider Network, which represents private providers said any profits made were returned under the terms of the contract.

Just a little something to make you smile – after all this gloomy news.

We see that Sainsbury’s is saying that if the travel ban on UK freight continues for much longer we could see shortages of lettuce in our shops.

“Hope this isn’t just the tip of the iceberg”


Panto off this Christmas? No way – It was alive and well at ‘Your Waverley.’


CartoonsDon’t mess with me – when I say the word ‘Confidential’ I mean it!

A couple of days ago we wrote about the Ding-Dong not so Merrily on High at Waverley Towers in the bad-tempered pre-Christmas council meeting.  But we reported on only half the Pantomime! The curtain then rose on the second act – during which The Borough Solicitor’s advice – no, actually more like an instruction – was ignored by all but one of the Tory opposition.

The political fracas followed Mayor Penny Marriott’s motion to hold a ‘sensitive property matter’ that was subject to a legally binding confidentially agreement’ behind closed doors. Enter, centre-stage on her broomstick, or was it the parachute she used to protect her backside in the last election came Julia Potts, leader of the Tory Group. The lady did protest her ‘extreme concern’ that the matter that had generated extreme public interest was to be debated in private. 

Galloping in as the pantomime horse – the *rse end, of course, came ‘Oh Carole’ Cockburn claiming it was perfectly easy to debate confidential items in public just as she had done many times when she was Mayor “provided the meeting is well chaired!” Giving a second kick to the present Worshipful Mayor for the second time in one evening. Neigh!! 

You can read the earlier Ding-Dong below.


Next on stage in a bid to halt the “Tories political grandstanding” came Baron Hardup AKA Deputy Leader Cllr Paul Follows, who said the council was merely “adhering to legal obligations it was forced to abide by.” In part made necessary in view of the “disinformation” that had already been spread publicly on the subject by the Tories!

He resented being accused of misleading the public and could if he wished, reveal e-mails written by non-other than former solicitor Wonersh Cllr Michael Goodridge and comments made in public – saying, “we can provide the evidence.”  He claimed, the Tories had, either not read their papers, or were trying to present false information.”

Godalming’s Widow Twanky – Steve Cosser – so steamed up and puffed up we thought he was going to implode – claimed the confidential papers revealed how the matter – the identity of which we at the WW know not – has been handled. “The secrecy that surrounds this site, could and should be scrutinised by the public. “You are setting a dangerous precedent shoving an issue into Exempt that doesn’t need to be there” he yelled!

Is this coming from an experienced councillor who has seen numerous items debated in private by his crowd during its controlling years – mainly in a Conservative Group Pre-Meeting? 

Perhaps we should ask our legal advisors’ for their view, said  ‘Aunty Elsey’ – Cllr Jenny Else, who regularly claims she always obeys the council’s Code of Conduct and its rules!

Borough Solicitor Daniel Bainbridge told members” “The recommendation from officers is that you debate EVERYTHING on this item IN EXEMPT. This is not the first time the council has been asked to consider something entirely in private, and there are very good legal reasons why at this stage in the proceedings this should happen.”

“I cannot stress more strongly the risk to the council if the contents of the report are discussed in open session.”

Having listened, but obviously didn’t hear his advice, or chose to ignore it – Cllr Else, together with 19 of her colleagues voted against; Only one Tory – Cranleigh’s Cllr Mary Foryszewski opposed the Tory whip. The remaining 34 councillors, based on the legal advice voted to exclude the press and public.

Will ignoring the whip find former Mayor Mary chained to her dog kennel?










Vaccinations are on their way to ‘Your Waverley.’


Despite the latest gloomy news, and despite Waverley being in Tier 2 – Christmas is going to be a shadow of its former self for many of us – as we now border other towns and villages in Tier 4 with much tighter restrictions.

Only Waverley residents among Surrey boroughs will be able to mix indoors and only on Christmas Day, as opposed to the five-day period originally proposed. But we cannot be complacent. Waverley is still reporting 217 cases in the past seven days, an increase of 104 on the previous week.

It was reported earlier today that there were 608 reported new infections in Surrey and six deaths in Surrey hospitals overnight (Saturday).  This brings the death toll in Surrey to 1,553. 

new Christmas rules?

A brief summary is below:

  • Anyone in Tier 4 areas, this is all of Surrey except for Waverley, should not mix with anyone outside their households.
  • Across the rest of the country including Waverley, the rules allowing up to three households to meet will now be limited to Christmas Day only rather than the five days.
  • People must not break the rules at New Year – as before there will be no relaxation of rules on December 31.

What are the restrictions now in place for most of Surrey?

The new Tier 4 rules are similar to that of the national lockdown in November. They include:

  • Non-essential shops and gyms in Tier 4 areas must close
  • Plans to allow social bubbles over five days will be scrapped with only those in Tiers 1 to 3 allowed to form a bubble on Christmas Day itself
  • People should not enter or leave Tier 4
  • People can only meet one person from another household in an outside space

The majority of Surrey is now in Tier 4 after new tougher restrictions came into place at 12.01 am this morning.

‘We will not be having the Christmas we all hoped for’

Surrey County Council

Tim Oliver, Leader of Surrey County Council, has issued a statement.

I know this will come as a blow to residents and businesses across Surrey, but it is absolutely necessary that we act fast to save lives.

We are essentially heading back into the lockdown restrictions the whole country was under in November, and unfortunately, we will not be having the Christmas that we all hoped for.

It is tough to take, after a really difficult year but we must keep up the fight. Let’s not let our guard down, let’s all play our part and keep Surrey safe.

Surrey’s Local Resilience Forum, including the county council, will continue our work to ensure that help is available for those in need and our Public Health team will continue to monitor local data every single day to track this virus and stop the spread.

“We will continue to support our NHS colleagues in rolling out the vaccine as fast as possible across Surrey – this is our hope of returning to normal life and we will do everything we can to make this happen.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) latest advice and statistics for Waverley

Waverley is in Tier 2

The borough of Waverley has been in Tier 2 (High Alert Level) since Wednesday 2 December. You can find Tier 2 FAQs by visiting our Covid FAQs page.

Find out more about Tier 2 restrictions

Currently, Waverley remains in Tier 2. However, infection levels are rising and it is more important than ever that residents and people in the borough remain vigilant. 

Those who work in the borough should follow the rules of the tier they live in. Visit the gov.UK website to find out what the Covid restrictions in your local area are. 

Christmas bubbles

On 19 December, the Prime Minister announced there would be stricter restrictions to Christmas bubbles.

Bubbles of up the three households in Tiers 1, 2 and 3 will now only be allowed to meet on Christmas Day, instead of meeting across a five-day period. 

Households in Tier 2 have been told to stay local and not to host people from Tier 4 areas. 

Find out more about Christmas bubbles

Fear Not – help is on the Way. Here’s the Pre-Christmas scene at St Christopher’s Church in Haslemere. How apt that the authorities have allowed a church to be used to bring us tiding of great joy.


Surrey County Council’s Community Helpline is still active to aid those in need: Community Helpline number: 0300 200 1008

Most of Surrey goes into Tier 3 – but not ‘Your Waverley.’



An appeal by Waverley’s Leader Cllr John Ward to exclude Waverley from Tier 3 COVID alert measures introduced by the Government yesterday, has paid off.

Secretary of State for Health Matt Hancock announced that although “sadly” the whole of Surrey would move up a tier – Waverley would not.  So remains in Tier 2.

Direct appeals by the borough council, combined with residents’ determined efforts to stick to the rules, has paid off for our borough. Well done Waverley – let’s keep up the good work. Let’s make Christmas safe in our borough and enter the new year in a fit state for the vaccination programme to begin.

Councillors in Cranleigh heard last night that the CCG will begin the local vaccination programme in its village hall after Christmas, and is proud of the part it is playing in the battle against COVID-19.

Guildford and most of Surrey moves into Tier 3, the very high Covid alert level, from (0001hrs) December 19, due to rapidly rising infection rates. 

Movement between Waverley (including Godalming, Cranleigh, Farnham and Haslemere) and the rest of the county, including Guildford borough, should now be restricted. The tiers are not due to be reviewed again until December 30 and another on 13 of January.

The decision is based on several indicators, not just the overall infection rate but the rate in the over-60s, and pressure on the NHS.

Tier 3 means:

  • You can mix households (in groups of up to six) only in outdoor spaces, such as parks and the countryside, not in private gardens;
  • All hospitality venues such as bars, pubs and cafés must shut, or stay open only for takeaway;
  • Indoor entertainment venues, such as theatres and cinemas, must close; and
  • Accommodation, such as hotels and B&Bs, must close.

These are in addition to existing guidelines that state you must not mix with anyone you don’t live with who aren’t in your support bubble, in any indoor setting.

Residents in Waverley should continue to follow Tier 2 rules. Those in Tier 3 should avoid travelling outside their area, including for overnight stays, other than where necessary, such as for work, education or medical treatment.

The Waverley web has received some worrying information from one of our followers saying these dangerous and irresponsible leaflets are dropping through doors in Waverley. Perhaps faster than their Christmas Cards? Ignore them, bin them, destroy them! 



Your Waverley says goodbye to 2020 with political rows and a lesson in grammar.

Because they know how to make the Season To Be Joyful – la, la, la, la, la! 

The cycle of Full Council Meetings of 2020 ended with some very testy – and testing – moments, including personal insults, a lesson in grammar,  a legal argument and one councillor describing the new administration as “An Unholy Alliance”, which was followed by a stinging rebuke from The Mayor! Hey, Ho, is that the sound of the monitoring officer we hear?

In fact, the council’s December meeting proved to be anything but It’s  ‘Looking A Lot Like Christmas’  and was more akin to ‘The Grinch Stole Christmas.’ Thankfully the meeting was held on Zoom otherwise there might have been fisticuffs in the Chamber or, as one Waverley-Web-Wag succinctly put it, no nipping into the Mayor’s Parlour for a post-meeting mince pie and a punch up!

The pantomime atmosphere began after Waverley’s very own  ‘Chancellor’ – Finance Director Cllr Mark Merryweather – completed his gloomy forecast of the council’s financial position, after grappling with challenges imposed by Government cuts and COVID-19. All of which he advised was leading to an imbalance in the budget of an estimated, £3m next year, falling to £2m from then until 2023/24. Despite identified efficiencies and savings! Some of this deficit could be addressed IF – and only IF (and yes, it’s a BIG IF), the Government allowed councils to retain more of the business rates they collect.

He said, “What with COVID and BREXIT, we are living in very uncertain times.”

Cranleigh Cllr Liz Townsend with her halo of gold having just joined the Liberal Democrats.

Cllr Liz Townsend asked how she was supposed to explain to Cranleigh traders on her high street, paying £8,300 pa business rates, that Waverley would only receive £415 of their hard-earned cash for the local economy?!?!

She was followed by Cllr Follows – who drove the knife into the Government a little further, saying,  it had not met its pledge that the pandemic would not leave local authorities out of pocket! He said promised government grants had covered under half its shortfall.

Twas ever thus, according to senior Tory  Cllr Peter Martin, despite the Government saying it would make changes to business rates.

It was the opinion of Farnham’s Jerry Hyman that the Government was deliberately forcing councils into bankruptcy in a bid to bring on more Unitary Authorities.

“It is absolutely disgraceful and is a direct attack on democracy and a financial attack on us all.”

It was then that Simon Dear, the Tory Cllr for Haslemere & Grayswood, came sweeping in, like the Wicked Witch of the North on his broomstick, to smack Waverley’s new boys and girls, and those moaning traders. He said he could easily explain the good news on business rates to Cllr Townsend’s Cranleigh traders. They had received a business rate holiday from the Government for a year, a free gift to overcome the difficulties faced by the high streets.”!

He said :

“Just like our own dear Waverley Council, Elmbridge Council was taken over by an unholy alliance of liberals – local residents’ associations and others, who had just increased parking charges to keep businesses afloat.”

Interrupted by a fuming Leader John Ward shouting “I don’t wish to be associated with an unholy alliance,” didn’t stop Cllr Dear who was now on a roll continuing with…

“While our own unholy alliance here this evening will not put up parking charges and to have that glorious moment recorded on U-tube for posterity.”

Hasn’t anyone told him that some of those businesses are already on the brink – because they haven’t actually been in ‘business’ for most of the year? Never mind – back to Planet Zonk Dear boy!

The Mayor – was not amused and neither was Cllr Anne-Marie Rosoman who demanded an apology for his reference to Waverley’s administration being called “an unholy alliance.”  However, the Mayor’s rebuke and Cllr Rosoman’s request fell on deaf ears – or maybe it was just the Northwind whistling up Councillor Dear’s broomstick!

Responding to Cllr Dear’s “pantomime question”, Cllr Merryweather said his colleague obviously hadn’t understood the changes to parking charges either.  The council didn’t have a blanket charging policy now.

After a vote of 50 for, with just two abstentions, the recommendation to approve the budget was adopted. Needless to say, Simple Simon abstained.

The second act of Waverley’s Pantomime Season began when the Council’s Corporate Strategy came up for discussion.

It was then, adopting her very best schoolmarm tone, that ‘Oh Carole’ – AKA Councillor Cockburn – switched on, with the alacrity of a set of faulty Christmas lights – and gave the Full Council – and the few dummies, like us who listen in – a lesson in punctuation from the Pantomime Dame who knows a thing or two about grammar and punctuation, don’t you know! Of course, she omitted to mention that reports/documents put before the council are produced by Waverley officers! Oh dear – now, living up to her nickname Oh Carole!  There won’t be too many Christmas cards from staff coming her way this year then?  Never mind, she can blame it on the Post Office’s poor performance during COVID – why not, everyone else is!

You can listen to the complete tirade on the link below, but, to give you a flavour, if you can’t be *ssed, this was one of her questions: “Have you eaten Cllr Follows?” Careful observers might have seen her claws unfurl as she stretched and arched her back and added, “If he had read that, he would have thought I had accused him of some heinous crime – even though he wears those awful ties from time to time?” MEOW!

Lack of space prevents us from giving you the whole-long diatribe – but it ended with an unforgivable dig at Waverley’s treasured Worshipful Mayor, Penny Marriott. Although we were not among those fortunate enough to receive a card with her good wishes. Obviously, not-so-dear ‘Oh Carole’ obviously had! 

“One rule that may come in handy Madam Mayor – next time you do your Christmas Cards don’t use a double negative.”



Ding dong but not so  ‘merrily on high?’

So, as you can tell folks, the Spirit of Christmas is alive but not very well on Planet Waverley!!

A post will follow on the debacle prompted by a Tory revolt on a decision, on the advice of the council’s legal eagles, to take an item in Confidence and behind closed doors. However, you can watch it for yourselves here:


Apologies to Cllr Cockburn from the Waverley Web team  who had only hours earlier partaken of some amber nectar at our virtual Christmas get-together.  Our excuse for any grammatical or punctuation mistakes. Thank God she didn’t move on to chastise everyone for using split infinitives.







CPRE takes a swingeing blow at an Alfold planning application.


It is not just Alfold residents and village leaders that are opposed to the latest Thakeham Homes application.

The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England is backing the local fight to protect yet another slice of the Surrey/Sussex border village of Alfold being swamped by wannabe housing developers. 

Here’s WW’s previous post –  Thakeham ’s battle to build in Alfold has begun. 

According to the countryside organisation – this Application goes against everything in both Local Plan Part 1 and the emerging Local Plan Part 2.

The CPRE have made their views known in no uncertain terms. 

Thakeham Homes Application to build  99 dwellings (Including 30% Affordable Housing) associated highways and landscape works following the demolition of Hollyoak. On land THE  TO REAR COORDS 503762 135006 LOXWOOD ROAD ALFOLD.

CPRE Surrey has considered the above application and wishes to record its objection to the grant of permission for the following reasons.

Harm to the Character of Alfold and the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

Alfold, including Alfold Crossroads, is an attractive village which lies in the heart of the beautiful” fold” countryside on the Surrey / West Sussex border with its cluster of small villages and many period houses. This countryside is attractive and relatively remote: in some ways, it is a quintessential English rural landscape. The proposed development would significantly impact the rural settlement of Alfold Crossways increasing the existing 200 plus dwellings to in excess of 300 households.

The scale of the proposed housing development would cause substantial harm to the character of the village; it would not respect the scale or character of the village and would fail to respect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. It would therefore conflict with LPP1 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF.)

Sustainable Transport

Development of the proposed scale would create a significant demand for movement on the local road network. The A281 has been recognised as one of the main transport congestion hotspots in Waverley and would be one of the main routes for new residents in Alfold Crossroads to access major shopping centres, rail hubs and places of work.

Residents in rural Waverley have above the national average car ownership and limited access to other more sustainable forms of transport. Local Plan Part 2 ( LPP2) (emerging) reinforces this in paragraph 2.55

“The spatial vision and strategic objectives of Local Plan Part 1 seek to encourage sustainable modes of transport and a reduction in the need to
travel wherever possible. Reducing people’s reliance on driving by directing new development to sustainable locations…..”

Even THAMES WATER Don’t seem happy with this application – But their hands are tied as they have to provide their services for New Builds and all they can do is put in Conditions which many Developers, later on, seek to have removed (as we have seen on previous Applications..)

Waste Comments

Following initial investigations, Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing FOUL WATER network infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this development proposal. Thames Water has contacted the developer in an attempt to agree on a position for foul water networks but has been unable to do so in the time available and as such Thames Water request that the following condition be added to any planning permission.

“The development shall not be occupied until confirmation has been provided that either:- 1. All wastewater network up grades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed; or-

2. A development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with the Local Authority in consultation with Thames Water to allow development to be occupied. Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed, no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan.”
Reason – Network reinforcement works are likely to be required to accommodate the proposed development. Any reinforcement works identified will be necessary in order to avoid sewage flooding and/or potential pollution incidents…..”

Finally… at the Alfold Parish Council  Meeting Mr Robinson (Conservative Councillor for Basingstoke & Dean) was unable to confirm exactly what AFFORDABLE HOUSING meant – He waffled on about the various different options – But I believe the Government understanding of the Term according to the NPPF Glossary is……….Annexe 2: Glossary
Glossary of terms used in this manual.

Affordable housing
Housing for sale or rent, for those whose needs, are not met by the market (including housing that provides a subsidised route to homeownership and/or is for essential local workers); and which complies with one or more of the following definitions:

(a) Affordable housing for rent: meets all of the following conditions: (a) the rent is set in accordance with the Government’s rent policy for Social Rent or Affordable Rent, or is at least 20% below local market rents (including service charges where applicable); (b) the landlord is a registered provider, except where it is included as part of a Build to Rent scheme (in which case the landlord need not be a registered provider); and (c) it includes provisions to remain at an affordable price for future eligible households, or for the subsidy to be recycled for alternative affordable housing provision. For Build, to Rent schemes, affordable housing for rent is expected to be the normal form of affordable housing provision (and, in this context, is known as Affordable Private Rent).

(b) Starter homes: is as specified in sections 2 and 3 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 and any secondary legislation made under these sections. The definition of a starter home should reflect the meaning set out in statute and any such secondary legislation at the time of plan-preparation or decision-making. Where secondary legislation has the effect of limiting a household’s eligibility to purchase a starter home to those with a particular maximum level of household income, those restrictions should be used.

(c) Discounted market sales housing: is that sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market value. Eligibility is determined with regard to local incomes and local house prices. Provisions should be in place to ensure housing remains at a discount for future eligible households.

So Only 20% BELOW MARKET VALUE… We wish they would make this information clearer to all those that think they will be able to afford these New Homes.


Here’s the original letter and above is a follow-up .document-8076897

Paul Follows looks forward to 2021 with a new colleague by his side.


No wonder Waverley’s Deputy leader Paul Follows is feeling more than a little chipper. He is welcoming a former Tory councillor into the Liberal Democrat fold.

Tucked away at the end of the Full Council’s very long ‘Agenda and Reports’ for tomorrow’s meeting there appears a little golden nugget – almost hidden from view.

The announcement that Cllr Liz Townsend – currently an independent member of the Executive Group has entered the Liberal Democrat fold. Cllr Townsend – Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council and part of the powerful EXECUTIVE of Waverley is one of the most hardworking and highly respected members of Waverley Borough Council. Even among her former colleagues on the Conservative Group! She left the party citing differences of views with the National Conservative Party from which she resigned in 2019. Even the new Tory MP for Guildford paid tribute in Parliament to Cllr Townsend for her sterling work during the Coronavirus pandemic. 

The report confirms…

… Due to the change to the political composition of the Council as a result of Cllr Townsend joining the Liberal Democrat Group, and the consequent impact on the allocation of committee seats on the principal committees it is recommended that Council agrees on the proportional allocation of seats on the Principal Committees and SCC Local Committee in accordance with the political proportionality of the Council as detailed in Annexe 1. 

The nominations of the Group Leaders are Licensing & Regulatory Committee – Cllr Peter Isherwood (Conservative Group) EASTERN Planning Committee – Cllr Liz Townsend (Liberal Democrat Group) and Cllr Maxine Gale (Independent) 

Thakeham’s battle to build in Alfold has begun.



HGV’s thundering through – infrastructure under stress and developers diggers lining up to build, build.  – Alfold has had enough!

Thakeham Homes was given short shrift when its representatives rocked up at Alfold Parish Council’s Zoom meeting to unveil its latest cunning plans for the Care Ashore Land. Despite still smarting from the Government refusal of a scheme for up to 500 homes it received in December 2017 the Billingshurst developer isn’t giving up. It is now taking a softly, softly approach by seeking permission for 99 new homes.

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

The developer was emboldened by this one sentence in the Government Inspector’s decision letter: 

Waverley Borough Council does not have a five-year land supply!

In true pre-panto mood, Chairman Penni Mayne said, Oh yes it does. Waverley’s assures us it has a land supply of 5.3 years.

Oh No, it doesn’t say Thakeham.  Appeal decisions on the Wyevale Garden Centre said it only had 3.9 years supply and on land east of Loxwood Road – (Sweeters’ Copse) only 4 years. So Waverley cannot demonstrate a five-year land supply!

 So is Thakeham hell-bent on testing that assumption with Waverley planners and no doubt yet again with the Government too? Yet more cash rattling down Waverley’s drain!

Thakeham’s Tristan Robinson maintained the scheme behind Loxwood Road after demolishing a bungalow it owns, was necessary to meet Waverley’s housing shortage. It would meet the needs of the young, with 30% affordable homes – and downsizers.

But, Alfold councillors asked?-What’s in this for us?

  • money towards local education – presumably he was referring to primary education at Dunsfold’s new garden village. Plus contributions towards senior schools in Cranleigh.
  • A leisure area – and community recycling.
  • Bird and bat boxes
  • electric charging points
  • 178 new trees
  • Last but not least – A Hedgehog hotel!

Despite the fact that Alfold’s toilets regularly overflow and it has a frequent flooding problem after heavy rain, Mr Robison assured councillors that the lead flood authority had – no objection to building more homes in Alfold.

Well – that must come as a relief to the poor Alfold souls who regularly watch the water in their lavatories overflow. Not to mention the unmentionables floating in their gardens? Portaloos at the ready folks?

Waverley Borough Council would also be a winner in the Thakeham stakes they are promising 2.4m in Community Infrastructure Levy if they get permission.

But what about us – Alfold Parish councillors cried? “You will get £360,000 to spend on whatever you like, said a smiling Mr Robinson waving his good fairy wand and sprinkling stardust all over everyone.

After councillors reminded Mr Robinsons that a great deal more was offered to the village in the previous much larger application –  a school – shops – etc – he reminded them that the smaller scheme wouldn’t be quite so advantageous. However, it had already received support from young people.

Not according to our reckoning said Alasdair Denton-Miller: “Waverley’s planning portal shows 140 objections and four in support!”

It was villager Denise Wordsworth who put Thakeham representative under the spotlight. After her questioning session – he began to resemble the wicked witch of the North as she slowly disintegrates. 

After reeling off a list of the amenities that Alfold didn’t have, she reminded him of all the recent consents given, appeal decisions – and latest appeals in the pipeline.

“Why 99 homes opposed to 100 homes?” Quite simply because neither you – nor the other developers in this village have had to provide much infrastructure have they? No schools, no GP surgery. Giving us a bus shelter, bat boxes and a couple of other bits and pieces are of no benefit to this village. There is something fundamentally wrong with this.”

Ah! But if the village had accepted the larger scheme it would have had a school, said  Mr Robinson?

Does white man speak with forked tongue? At the public Inquiry, Thakeham admitted it was hitching its trucks to nearby Dunsfold’s major garden village scheme. A development of 1,800 homes – 2600 in the Local Plan which included major infrastructure – including GP surgery, a school and public transport.

On a roll, Mrs Wordsworth continued said: “You intend to knock down a bungalow to create one access from the busy Loxwood B Road impacting the homes of numerous local people.”

Was this current application Phase `One of a larger development to come later – perhaps 99 and then another 99 and then… she asked?

Startled by her continuing interrogation Mr Robinson said: “I will give you an honest answer every application has to be considered on its merits – and this is the only scheme Thakeham is considering …“At the moment.” or later – “At the present time.”

Gotcha! So Alfold people, who have now endured living on a building site with 250 of its 125 quota of Waverley’s housing allocation already under construction, can rest easy in their beds. Until the next planning notice pops through their letterboxes for yet another phase on the Springbok land?

Well – said Cllr Adrian Erricker – we are here to represent the public – and the public is saying No! This scheme is unsustainable and we have exceeded our limit for new housing. Cllr  Denton-Miller said the access would affect the lives of many villagers in adjoining homes – and the loss of countryside and agricultural land was unacceptable.

“Our countryside is being sacrificed for just another middle-of-the-road housing estate. That, following the previous refusal, is coming through the back door”


Cllr Chris Britton said the scheme was:

Everything that Alfold’s Neighbourhood Plan wanted to prevent. Developing countryside  – just two fields away from the proposed new Dunsfold Garden Village 

“This is just a speculative opportunistic building opportunity. We have so much development going on here – it’s coming out of our ears.

Ending on a fragrant note. Chairman Penni Mayne said nearby Loxwood wouldn’t be happy either when it had to deal with more of Alfold’s sewerage!

The council’s strong objection will now be forwarded to Waverley Council.






Santa’s arrived in Godalming.



Santa gets a huge welcome from the Mayor of Godalming Cllr Penny Rivers


Councillor Penny Rivers – Mayor of Godalming said:
‘Thank you, Santa Claus, for making time in your very busy time of year to visit the children of Farncombe and Godalming. And, please thank all your Round Table helpers too.’
Happy Christmas one and all X
And a message from the Godalming Round Table too
Please do donate a little if you enjoyed seeing Santa and would like to help others in our local community who are struggling at the moment: https://www.justgiving.com/campaign/GodalmingSanta2020
Godalming Santa Sleigh 2020
Godalming Santa Sleigh 2020


‘Your Waverley’ is urging everyone to shop local.


Councillors from every corner of the borough including Farnham,  Haslemere – Godalming, Cranleigh and the villages are urging everyone to support their local traders over the coming weeks. The COVID pandemic has wreaked havoc on many of the borough’s small businesses. So they are urging everyone, where possible, to buy local this Christmas.

Lighting up Cranleigh-picture taken in 2019.


WBC Labour Councillor and former Member of Parliament – responsible for Waverley car parks.

Labour Councillor Nick Palmer has been looking at the parking stats for the borough-owned car parks. And, they don’t make good reading for cash-strapped Waverley.

He regularly keeps in touch with residents – including the Waverley Web and regularly passes on some very helpful information.

 He told us.

Looking at the figures for parking in the borough car parks, usage is still less than half the normal, reflecting the caution that most people still feel. There’s no doubt that shops are suffering – when you do need to shop, please try to support local businesses, not least so to ensure that they’re still there when the pandemic ends.

As the council portfolio-holder for parking, I was asked if we could have one Saturday free parking, which I’ve had to decline, partly because of the council financial squeeze but mainly because we don’t want to encourage everyone to shop in crowds on one particular day. Instead, I hope that most of us will spread shopping visits during the week insofar as our circumstances make that possible so that the businesses get a steady stream of customers rather than alternating between a crush and an empty shop.


Face with medical mask

But don’t forget to wear your face mask.
It is all happening in Farnham

Discover what is happening in Farnham this Christmas and ways to support local retailers and businesses.

Remember, events and activities may have to change in line with government guidance.

Christmas Spirit Trail

1 December to 3 January

Get out and about with the kids this December and take part in Farnham’s Christmas trail. Special festive stickers are hiding in ten town centre shop windows. When you find the character, scan the QR code to be in with a chance of winning a free ebookLearn how to play.


Spending some of your Christmas budget in local shops could make all the difference to the future of the town in 2021.

If you are looking for gifts that are special, take a virtual trip to Farnham or visit in person when you can – you won’t be disappointed.

Virtual Farnham 

Visit Virtual Farnham to browse a directory of Farnham’s shops.

We Are Farnham

We Are Farnham is a growing digital marketplace providing a one-stop-shop for people to buy online or by click and collect from Farnham’s shops and businesses.

Late night shopping

3, 10 and 17 December until 8 pm

Make the most of the town centre shops being open until 8 pm on Thursdays leading up to Christmas.

Win £1,000

Download our Christmas in Farnham leaflet to find out how you can win £1,000 in vouchers when you come late night shopping in Farnham.

Farmers’ Market

Sunday 13 December from 10 am to 1.20 pm in Central car park.

Bring some tasty festive cheer to your Christmas table with delicious treats from the Farnham Farmers’ Market.

See who is attending.

Civic Community Christmas Carol Service

Wednesday 23 December at 7 pm

The Mayor of Farnham invites you to attend the Civic Community Christmas Carol Service online from the safety and comfort of your own home.

The service will include five lessons and carols with the internationally acclaimed, award-winning Farnham Youth Choir.

See the order of service.

Christmas in Farnham Sponsors

Thank you to this year’s Christmas in Farnham sponsors.

white and green logo on grey background Kidd Rapinet Solicitors

Corporate Sponsor

Abbeyfield Wey Valley Society logo Abbeyfield Wey Valley Society

Gold Sponsor

Logo (Footer)






Blue Sky Cinema on its way to Dunsfold Aerodrome.


The home of Top Gear and the location for numerous blockbuster films will welcome Drive-in Cinema to the famous airfield site. It brings safe and secure cinema entertainment to Surrey in time to brighten up Christmas for just one month.
All the information you need is in the link below.  You can even buy a hamper for a family outing or order food and drink boxes to enjoy, including a cheese and wine board. While sitting in the comfort of your car watching the big screen.

The Waverley Web would like to thank the Cranleigh Community Board Facebook users for sending us this information.


Could a different style of care for older people be on its way to Godalming?


For years the residents of Godalming have been wondering when someone- anyone would come up with a cunning plan for the former MOLE Country Store one-acre site on Brighton Road. Rumours that Lidl and Aldi want to move in – have come to nothing.
The valuable site –  once home to both SCATS and the popular and long-established Alan Paine Knitwear outlet has stood vacant since the country store closed its doors for the last time in 2017. 
The Waverley Web understands that a company called Birchgrove is holding a public consultation to build 53 flats with 24-hour care in a three, and part five-storey building, in extensive landscaped grounds. A planning application is expected to be lodged with the borough council within days.
Birchgrove operates a portfolio of extra-care developments offering contemporary self-contained apartments in new purpose-built facilities. There is already a Birchgrove home in nearby Woking.
The company claims to be different from most other extra care developments in the country, as it works on a rental model. It believes that renting a home instead of owning is the most liberating form of tenure for older people seeking extra care. This offers the benefits of independent living whilst removing the complication of homeownership? The proposed one and two-bedroom apartments are only available for weekly rent to people over the age of 65.
Typical rent for a two-bedroom property is in the region of £5,000 per month – but with only council tax to pay. All other utilities and services are included.
So this:
Could become this?:
The company claims in its consultation documents that as most residents would be expected to be mainly single people aged 85 and over, there would be little need for many car parking spaces although 11 would be provided. There would be no pressure on local schools or leisure facilities and would free up numerous houses. There would be communal facilities, including a roof garden.
A number of pre-application meetings have been held with Waverley Planners, and some revisions, including a smaller footprint and a re-design of the layout of the buildings, have already been made in an effort to overcome their concerns.
There are concerns in Godalming, and almost every other town and village in the borough, that Infrastructure – including GP surgeries and nursing capacity is not keeping up with demand.
Notice: Public Consultation on the former Moles Country Store Site, Brighton Road until 11 December for more information, please visit more information on the link below.

Well done Waverley – our COVID infection rate is dropping.



Cranleigh Parish Council Chair and Waverley Borough Council  Executive Liz Townsend. Who is proud of the part Cranleigh is playing in the fight to protect the public from COVID-19.

At one point during the Coronavirus crisis, the infection rate in ‘Your Waverley’ was higher than in Woking.  Now Waverley’s rate has substantially dropped and is now the lowest in the county. However, residents are urged to “keep up the good work – because the first vaccines have arrived at The Royal Surrey in Guildford.

Helicopters hovered over Cranleigh Village Hall last week taking footage of the building which is to become a local Vaccination Centre for the eastern villages. Cranleigh Parish Council has led the way in opening its community building to the Surrey Heartlands NHS Trust. 

Cranleigh hall earmarked for a mass COVID vaccination centre.

In a mobilisation evoking memories of wartime, Britain’s community facilities are being handed over so millions can quickly receive the life-saving vaccine over the coming days. Secret plans drawn up by NHS top brass have put the country on a war footing with venues like Cranleigh’s on the frontline.

As preparations for a mass inoculation programme ramp up, the extraordinary can-do spirit behind- the UK’s biggest peacetime logistical exercise has been likened to those who helped on the home front during the Second World War.  The vaccine will be administered around-the-clock in what has been dubbed “V-Day” [Vaccination Day].  Cranleigh Village Hall was offered to health chiefs to play its part and from now on will only be used to give lifesaving jabs could arrive as soon as next week.

It is not the first time the Cranleigh hall has been used as a public vaccination centre. It was last used during the 1959 flu epidemic.

Parish council chair and Waverley Borough Councillor Liz Townsend said:

“Waverley Borough Council received a request from NHS Surrey Heartlands Clinical Commissioning Group asking whether we had any buildings available and ours is largely standing empty. We have a large hall, side rooms and plenty of parking so it’s perfect. The instruction was very clear and that was to be ready by today. (Last Thursday) It’s all agreed, we have signed on the dotted line and they will have exclusive use of it seven days a week between 8am-8pm. “

However, she has urged residents to stick to the rules, and stay safe, to ensure the Waverley infection rate continues to drop.

Well done Cranleigh Parish Council. The village which adopted the  motto  – ‘Cranleigh Cares.’

The Royal Surrey is among 50 hospitals to start vaccinating patients against coronavirus from Today Tuesday in the largest immunisation programme the country has ever experienced.

Frimley Park Hospital is believed to be the only other Surrey hospital to be included on the list.

A Royal Surrey spokesman stressed that patients will be contacted at the right time to come forward. People are asked not to contact or visit the hospital to seek a vaccine before then.

First to receive a vaccination will be those aged 80 and over, care home workers and NHS workers at higher risk.

Out-patients aged 80 and above and those being discharged from a hospital stay, will also be offered vaccination.

Additionally, hospitals will begin inviting over-80s with care home providers to book their staff for clinics. Any appointments not used for these groups will be used for healthcare workers who are at the highest risk of serious illness from Covid. Forty million doses are being delivered and all those vaccinated will need a booster jab 21 days later.

Royal Surrey’s Chief Nurse Jo Mountjoy


“This is a moment of real hope for our community. We look forward to working with our local partners on this and we thank our staff for their ongoing hard work and dedication throughout this pandemic.”


How to make a muppet out of yourself in readiness for the county council elections.


Cynical we may be, but isn’t it strange that councillors you seldom see, and hardly ever hear from, suddenly pop up in the most unexpected places for a photo opportunity?

Surrey County Councillor Andrew Povey has pictured himself for his pre-election leaflet here at the Cranleigh Recycling Centre. Really! You couldn’t make it up! 
Apparently, the locals over there in the eastern villages have been having a bit of fun at the expense of the Guildford Conservative Association’s chosen one. All the local comedians have been out in force on FACEBOOK claiming all the miracles they have achieved.
Perhaps Cllr Povey could perform another miracle and get the Road Closed signs removed from the Run Common Road which has been closed for over a year due to wait for it … wait for it ….a Badger Set! Funny that? – Surrey County Council used that same excuse for the delays on the Albury Road works too. 
Watch out – there are a lot of badgers about!!!

Don’t write to the Hon Angie – ring Annie Milton?


Ann Milton

Remember the good old days – back in former Guildford MP Anne Milton’s 14-year reign? Those were the days my friends when all you had to do was write to Anne Milton and before you could say the word ‘problem’ either she, or the wonderful Sarah Colby would respond. For some years she even whipped her colleagues into shape. in 2015, she was appointed Government Deputy Chief Whip of the House of Commons Treasurer of the Household.

We have been hearing from dozens of our followers how they have received short shrift from the local MP for Guildford and the eastern villages. Some of whom, have not even received the little off-putting missive printed below received from one of her disappointed constituents. 

Angela Richardson

Has Angela Richardson had the backs of Guildford and Cranleigh and villages residents since being elected as their MP? Or have they had her’s?

From: RICHARDSON, Angela <angela.richardson.mp@parliament.uk>

Dear Constituent,

Thank you very much for your e-mail. This is to confirm that my office has received it and that we are working to solve your query.

Did you include everything in your e-mail?

As Member of Parliament for Guildford, I can only make enquiries on behalf of constituents, so please make sure that you have provided your full name, address, and postcode.

You can check if I am your Member of Parliament by clicking here.

If you are writing to me after being in touch with local authorities or Government Departments, please attach your full correspondence with those institutions, including any relevant reference numbers.

If you have omitted to include any of the above in your message, please resend it, adding in the relevant information.

At last, the letter asks how can she help!

What can I help with?

I want to be able to help wherever I can and as quickly as possible, so please make sure that before writing to me you have exhausted all other avenues of action.

Ah! ha! But only write to me as a last resort?

If you are writing about a local issue, such as planning or local services, I would advise to write to your County or Borough councillors first, or the appropriate Council Department. You can find your County councillors here. To find your Guildford Borough councillors click here, or for your Waverley Borough councillors click here.

If you are writing with a complaint regarding a Government service, contacting the relevant Department, agency, or Ombudsman is the best and quickest route. I can take your case up with these institutions if you are not satisfied with how your complaint was dealt with.

Members of Parliament cannot offer legal advice, so please turn to the Citizens Advice Bureau for free independent advice. You can find their website here.

How do I deal with campaigns and policy-related e-mails?

I get hundreds of e-mails regarding Government policy every day, including campaigns. Some issues and campaigns often resurge. In order to read my position on longstanding issues, please check the ‘Policy Replies’ section on my website, by clicking here. This is where I upload comprehensive explanations on my positions.

How soon will you hear back from me?

I aim to respond to casework enquiries within 5 working days and to policy-related ones within 15 working days.

If your case requires me to forward correspondence to a Department, waiting times will be longer, depending on how busy that Department is and how quickly they come back to me.

How do I use your data?

I process all cases in strict accordance with GDPR. By e-mailing in, you give me permission to store your information and share relevant data about you and your circumstances with the relevant authorities, in order to get you the help you need.

You can read my full Privacy Policy here.

Please rest assured that my team and I are doing all that we can to ensure that you get a response in a timely manner.

With best wishes always,

Angela Richardson MP

Member of Parliament for Guildford

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

Tel: 020 7219 5851

; My Website.

Anne Milton trained as a nurse at St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London and worked for the NHS for 25 years. Anne has a wide range of experience in the NHS. She has nursed in hospitals, as a district nurse, worked in research and supporting GPs and nurses working in palliative care. She also pioneered a scheme to look after people who were sent home early from hospital. Her last job in the NHS was to give medical advice to councils and housing associations.

Anne was appointed Shadow Minister for Tourism in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport team. In July 2007, she was appointed as a Shadow Minister for Health. Between 2012-2014 she was Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury; between 2014 and 2015 she was appointed Vice-Chamberlain of the Household and, after the UK general election held in 2015, she was appointed Government Deputy Chief Whip of the House of Commons Treasurer of the Household.

But – Annie got her gun when she stopped Backing Boris on Brexit.