We feel an election​ coming on?​



Here are just a few comments from members of the public in and around The borough of Waverley as the flag is about to signal the start of election frenzy. 



Just a recap to remind everyone in Farnham how the Tories fared in the borough council elections four years ago.

Screen Shot 2017-10-07 at 17.48.45.png

Villagers bemoan the loss of their green fields and countryside, and new properties being squeezed onto flood-prone sites. They put the blame squarely, but perhaps not fairly on its councillors – all of whom are Tories?

Screen Shot 2018-08-07 at 09.38.53.png

Haslemere given a good smack by ‘Your Waverley’s’ iron fist.


You couldn’t Adam and Eve it. The law-abiding good people of Haslemere having decided not to sit idly by and watch their countryside suffer from the onward march of developers. Erect the sign featured below. Then along comes the jobsworths from Waverley and demand its removal – or else!

Because it was – ‘Political Advertising!”

Residents were told they could face a  fine by the Magistrates Court of £2,500 and a daily fine of £250! What is this, the Soviet bloc?

What? Fine and deprive the innocent people of Haslemere of free speech? God help us here at the Waverley Web then, if and when they find us. Jankers for life? Or even worse, tread on our web?

Oh! no… if you want to rule and thrive let a spider run alive?cropped-t2ec16vhjfwffz8rnuyzbsktypsiuq60_59

WHY did this stupid council act in such a draconian way?

SIMPLES… Because residents dared to demonstrate how much they care for their beautiful countryside during an election period. Perish the thought that the voting fodder of Haslemere gives a damn about politics. After all, didn’t they just vote onto the town council a Hindhead Tory despite knowing he insulted the residents of Cranleigh & Ewhurst in his bid to cover their countryside in concrete? The other councillor for Hindhead has gone AWOL!

More prats deserting Waverley’s sinking Tory ship?Will the people of Haslemere vote for more of the same at a Town Council by-election to-day?

If you are a Tory you can put two fingers up to the organisation – and they will make excuses for you?

So why such indecent haste, to use an iron fist to get ‘the offensive’ sign removed? How stupid of ‘Yor Waverley’ to offend every, man, woman and child in True Blue Tory land – just weeks before the election.  Everyone is aware that the Local Plan Part 2 includes several Haslemere sites for development. Including 50 homes in an Area of Great Landscape Value in Scotland Lane. And that it was delayed, by the Tory tossers until after the May election to ensure Haslemere remained True Blue!! Devious or what?

So what excuse did Waverley’s enforcement Wallies give for their draconian action?

“Because Waverley has an obligation to protect the sensitive Waverley environment from indiscriminate and harmful signage.”

Is that the same Waverley we hear you cry, that allowed ancient woodland to be damaged in Farnham in Cranleigh, Dunsfold, and elsewhere across the borough. Who allowed the bats at East Street to be destroyed,  badgers to be drowned in Cranleigh, and has threatened the future of Special Protection Areas, including endangered birdlife by ignoring Environmental Law!!

What a monumental bunch of hypocrites!

Here’s the sign.

Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 20.10.30.png

Residents lining up to take down the offending “political sign” – rather than risk a £2,500 fine and £250 per day! 

Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 20.09.41.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 20.09.10.png


Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 20.08.23.png

You can upset some of the people, some of the time and get away with it. But, not all of the people all of the time.



Desperate times for the Tories must have arrived in Farnham?


 ‘Your Waverley’  wants to promote…

“A new approach to help us to build community cohesion and create a strong local identity. Engaging with our local communities will be at the forefront of how we will take projects forward, making sure we listen to the voices of the active and articulate, as well as the vulnerable or rarely heard.”


Q: When is a Neighbourhood Plan not a Masterplan?

A: When Farnham Conservatives desperately need Election PR.

Can you believe that Waverley Tories have decided that they need to have a new Masterplan for Farnham! So they have voted themselves another £100,000 for Consultants to come up with a vision for the next 25 years.

Hold on, didn’t the Farnham Town Council just spend £25,000+ on a plan? A plan that went to a referendum – and won a High Court Appeal – for the next 18 years? What Tory twerp thought we really need to cover all this again and in particular the years 2032 – 2039?

When most of us would like some assurances about what will happen next week!!

What else could they come up with to spend a mysterious £250,000 reserve from the Business rate pilot? Farnham Herald reports, rather tartly: “The windfall will, says the council, be used to fund “exciting community-led projects” starting with a Farnham masterplan – “looking at the town in a more joined-up way”, ensuring sites such as Brightwells and the Woolmead “work together sympathetically, with each other and the wider town”. No really! You have to be joking, it is an early April fool surely?

ummingbirdThinking up something nice and fluffy to say ahead of the local elections, Julia Potts Waverley’s very own umming bird came up with this at the Full Council meeting: “This new approach will help us to build community cohesion and create a strong local identity. Engaging with our local communities will be at the forefront of how we will take projects forward, making sure we listen to the voices of the active and articulate, as well as the vulnerable or rarely heard.”

Since when has Waverley managed to build community cohesion in Farnham?!

Well, Waverley’s Chief Executive Tom Horwood has the answer! He gave £98K to his mates at RegenCo “transforming Britain one town at a Time” (The outfit that  worked with him at East Hants to oil the wheel of Whitehill/Borden Masterplan) and call it a Place Shaping Exercise

If you are a Tory you can put two fingers up to the organisation – and they will make excuses for you?




Councillor Christiaan Hesse the Conservative Councillor for Hindhead who hasn’t turned up for a single meeting for the past six months, was warned after four months and did not respond.  Perhaps the voting fodder of Hindhead might think more carefully before they elect their next representative?


Although we reported that The Conservative Councillor for Hindhead Christiaan Hesse was dumped by your Waverley ten days ago, at last night’s Full Council Meeting it was announced officially by Leader Julia Potts. Saying – “he hasn’t turned up here for six months.”

Whisper who dares – and he does – frequently,  in bounded, Lib Dem Godalming Councillor Paul Follows – who simply mentioned that since joining ‘Your Waverley’ he has enjoyed the “vigorous debating” and “ideas” put forward at various council meetings, at which he only wished  more Conservative councillors would – “turn up and attend.” Adding that their non-attendance was an insult to the residents who elected them. WOW!

An utterly arrogant  Mayor Denise Le Gal lightheartedly interjected by saying with a smile – they were normally referred to as…


At which point up shot Carole Cockburn saying she hoped the day would never come when councillors would have to spell out their reasons for non-attendance. Which could be through illness or personal. 

But not to even have the good grace to write, or respond to the Council and resign Cllr Cockburn?  

What excuse do you have for your Tory colleague for that? 

Here at the WW, we have witnessed Councillor Hesse become more and more frustrated and disenchanted with your Tory administration, its decision-making, its unwillingness to listen to many insiders, let alone outsiders, your Tory-dominated inner-fold. Thereby hangs another tale of Tory dissent?

More prats deserting Waverley’s sinking Tory ship?

Perhaps he should update his Linked In:

Plus his biog says he is: Excellent written and oral communication and influence skills. High-level UK security cleared.Screenshot 2019-03-19 at 10.51.33.png


Now, who’s​ felt a touch of the whip?



Guildford’s MP Explains Her Reasons for Defying Party Whip

Guildford, Cranleigh and Eastern Waverley villages  MP, Anne Milton, has been criticised by Brexit supporters for abstaining in the recent vote to remove the “no deal” option.

When the Commons voted on an amendment to reject the UK leaving the EU without a deal under any circumstances, by a margin of four Our Annie sat on her hands and crossed her fishnets!

Resulting in the government’s original motion – stating that the UK shouldn’t leave the EU without a deal on 29 March – was changed at the last minute.

The government had wanted to keep control of the Brexit process by keeping no-deal on the table, so ordered Conservative MPs to vote against their own motion.

The tactic failed because  Government ministers, including former whip Anne Milton, defied those orders leading to claims Mrs May had lost control of her party.

“The updated motion, to reject a no-deal Brexit under any circumstances, was passed by 321 to 278, a majority of 43.”

Anne Milton who has consistently said that, in her view, a “no deal” departure from the EU would be very damaging to the UK, was one of 13 government ministers – including cabinet members Amber Rudd, Greg Clark, David Gauke and David Mundell, to defy the government whip by abstaining.

 In a message to constituents, she said, “There was a series of amendments tabled by MPs  I voted against the amendment (a) in Dame Caroline Spelman’s name to remove no deal as an option partly because of the comments she (Dame Caroline) made herself. “She attempted to withdraw her amendment believing that the main Government motion was more powerful. However, the amendment was still put to the House and was won very narrowly – there were 312 votes in favour and 308 votes against.

“The main motion then became the only opportunity to prevent no deal on 29
March. Leaving with a deal has consistently been the Government’s preferred
outcome and this is a personal view that I have long held myself.

“I have always believed that a deal with the European Union, and a measured transition when leaving, was important for our economy. I, therefore, did not feel I could vote against this motion but wanted to make sure no deal was removed as an option.

“I would like us to leave the EU on 29 March and, had the Prime Minister’s deal
been supported, this would have been possible. I believe that a delay is now
inevitable if we do not want to leave without a deal in place.”

 Guildford resident Stuart Barnes, a former Conservative party member who supports Brexit, said,  “Judging by the disgraceful betrayal by MPs and ministers it seems that our Conservative MP was not listening when the resolution was passed by the GCA [Guildford Conservative Association].

“This possibly means the end of the party or at least a split between the real Conservatives (there are still some in the party) and the faux Conservatives who were mainly brought in under the ghastly Cameron regime.

I look forward to news of mass sackings and deselections of the faux Conservative MPs as their constituency members in the main are still real Conservatives.”

Godalming resident Patrick Haveron commented: “I see Anne Milton abstained, supporting the government on ‘No Deal’. Quite a feat for a former whip!”

Leave campaigner Christian Holliday, a Conservative borough councillor for Burpham was more conciliatory. Saying,  “I’m pleased Anne didn’t support the motion as amended. Attempting to rule out ‘No Deal ever’ on any circumstances sends out completely the wrong message in negotiations with the EU, although it is worth re-emphasising that ‘No Deal’ is still the current legal default position and, in my view, is the outcome that most closely reflects the referendum result.”

Guildford Conservative Association chairman Bob Hughes added: “Anne has shown once again that she puts the people she represents first. She continues to support the Prime Minister’s deal but regards leaving with no deal as being potentially disastrous, at least in the short term. It is not what people voted for and she is right to seek to rule it out.”

The three other Tory MPS whose constituencies overlap Guildford Borough, Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) Jonathan Lord (Woking), and Jeremy Hunt (Waverley) all supported the government and voted against the motion

Explaining the rebellion the “conservativehome” website states: “..it may well be that there are extenuating circumstances. First, it wasn’t expected that the Government’s motion would be amended. Before it was passed, the whip for the Government’s motion was for a free vote.

“Next, it is being claimed that a senior MP, or Downing Street aide, or both, indicated to some of the Ministers concerned that they would be able to abstain on the motion still – despite the amendment, originally tabled by Caroline Spelman, having been passed.

“The long and short of it is that it isn’t clear as we write which of the above, bar Mundell, acted knowingly in defiance of a three-line whip. And the waters will doubtless be muddied sufficiently so that we never know.”

Follows on Crime as Godalming is dubbed – ‘A frontier town!’


Crime is now a regular feature on all Waverley’s neighbourhood community boards. There were 19 incidents in one night in Cranleigh!  Many others reported to the police in Haslemere and Farnham. Godalming resident Mark Kimber is now referring to Godalming as a ” frontier town.”  

Others tell us they can’t even be bothered to report incidents and are taking their own measures to keep their homes, families and vehicles safe.

Here’s what Mark Kimber thinks…

Screen Shot 2019-03-16 at 21.21.47.png

And here’s what Liberal Democrat Godalming Councillor Paul Follows has to say about the deteriorating situation.

Here’s a man who is taking the concerns of Godalming people seriously, very seriously. 

A man, as you will see from this e-mail sent to Godalming Conservative supporters, that the Tories want to get rid of.

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 09.34.14

A sea change washes over Alfold? – But nothing to do with Care Ashore.


Word on the street – or, in this case, the lanes – is that there has been something of a sea change in Alfold. That tiny little village (population circa 1059 in the 2011 Census) has, it would appear, finally thrown in the towel and decided that it might be better to – whisper it who dares – attempt to work with the Dunsfold Developer rather than oppose it every millimetre of the way!

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

Long may it last … although if Little Britton of Protect Our Waverley (POW) gets his way and is parachuted into the Chair of the Parish Council in May, the truce may be short-lived – very short-lived!

Although, according to our informant, even the current Chair of the Parish Council had clearly had enough of the preening Little Britton Aka (POW). He recently attempted to throw a spoke in the wheel of the council’s bid to make peace with the Dunsfold Developer and offer its support for the latest application in relation to the Aerodrome.

Who the blazes does this arrogant little pipsqueak think he is? Unless we’re very much mistaken – and, if we are, we’ll apologise – both the Aerodrome and the Dunsfold Developer were in situ long before those Johnny-Come-Latelys, Little Britton and his wife, rocked up at their des res overlooking the airfield.

No sooner had Cranleigh Removals driven out the gates of Hall Place Farm than Little Britton and his wife had signed up to the Provisional Wing of Protect Our Waverley, intent on blasting the development of anything at the Aerodrome to kingdom come. But didn’t care an s*d  about the green fields of Cranleigh, Farnham, Ewhurst, Godalming’s Arons’s Hill, Milford Golf course, and now more Ewhurst countryside going under more concrete!

The usual suspects from the Provisional Wing of POW were naturally salivating at the prospect of yet more rabid NIMBYs joining their ranks and laid out the red (or do we mean green?) carpet and embarked on yet another orgy of self-congratulation.

Talking of Protect our Waverley, where are they when they’re needed? We seek them here, we seek them there, the poor beleaguered residents of Milford, Farnham, Godalming, Cranleigh and Ewhurst seek them everywhere but that rather unsavoury and steadily dwindling band of one-trick ponies seems to have evaporated in a puff of smoke on the steps of the High Court, with Little Britton now trying, mendaciously and repeatedly, to claim he’s nothing to do with them and hasn’t been for a very long time.

Just in case – he’s missed this clip and he’s conveniently forgotten his membership we will remind him here…

Screen Shot 2019-02-21 at 10.33.57.png

Isn’t it high time someone prosecuted Protect our Waverley under the Trades Description Act?!

Because as sure as hell it ain’t doing what it says on the can!

Politics with a Big P has been kicked out of Cranleigh Parish Council.






Once upon a time in La, La Land – where nothing is quite what it seems – Politics with a Big P has been kicked out of Cranleigh Parish Council!

Hurrah! Hurrah! The Parish Council has had a Eureka moment you might think … or maybe not!

We’re told, the Tory councillors in Cranleigh have issued a press release advising the Cranleigh voting fodder that all former Tory councillors will now call themselves INDEPENDENTS and are no longer to be under the cosh of their Tory masters!

If you believe that you’ll believe anything! Including that Mary Poppins was a saucy sex slave to Mr Banks’ evil banker!

Hold the bunting! Now regular readers will know that we, at the Waverley Web, hate to pee on anyone’s fireworks but over here in Farnham the Town Council has been playing these pretend war games for years – whilst all the time covertly running one of the slickest, most politically motivated outfits in the borough, as fully paid-up members of the Provisional Wing of the Surrey Tory Tossers (PSWTT).

mylittlepovey2The mutter in the Cranleigh gutter is that the Chairman of the Cranleigh Branch of Guildford Conservatives is spitting horsy-nuts over disenchanted Tory candidates behaving so churlishly, and so ungratefully so soon after the selection process to stand for Waverley borough and Cranleigh parish council seats as CONSERVATIVES. In fact, it’s rumoured he’s so cross he almost fell off his Little Pony!

So what will change? Well, wannabe Cranleigh parish councillors will now have to print and distribute their own election leaflets and pay their own election expenses. Holy Moses! Can it really be true that the party of the Duck House Debacle is really eschewing the truffle trough of election expenses?! Surely not!

Word on Cranleigh’s HGV over-burdened streets predicts the Tories believe they might just be in trouble – big trouble – in the True Blue Tory Heartland and that there may be challenges afoot from numerous Independents of the real kind – the WYSIWYG (what-you-see-is-what-you-get), does what it says on the can variety as opposed to the ones who simply doff their Tory-Tosser hats at parish meetings and pop them back on again at borough meetings.

Maybe it’s time to remind these dyed in the wood die-hards what the word INDEPENDENT actually means?


The so-called non-political Farnham Town Council recently parachuted in a well-known Tory councillor following the resignation of another female Tory councillor only months before the election. Other Tory Tosser councillors were dragged from their death beds to prevent the seat being snaffled up by a true Independent or any other party because keeping Farnham Tory controlled was deemed imperative.

The same happened in Godalming, only last year when Godalming’s then-Mayor and Waverley’s EXECUTIVE was convicted of child abuse and sent to jail. But – Shock! Horror! –  Liberal Democrat Paul Follows snatched the seat from the Tory Tosser’s grasp after a hard-fought By-Election. Now there is a full-on Tory attack – to “Wash That Man Right Out of Our Hair.”

We would have so much more admiration for the newly declared Cranleigh Independents if they had carried their Independence Day declarations all the way to Waverley Towers. But, no doubt, they were fearful of being exposed to the cold hard light of day that greets opposition councillors. They would have their comfort blankets whipped away and would miss Good Riddance’s whiplashing their buttocks in their new Fifty Shades of Grey – or do we mean blue? – world!



D-Day for drilling in Dunsfold.


As the locals gear up for yet another fight – we bring you the latest mutter in the gutter about Dunsfold village’s new drilling site. Whilst villagers get themselves into fight mode, the oil exploration company UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) has revealed more details of its proposed new drilling site in what it describes as Dunsfold’s…

Screen Shot 2019-03-08 at 21.13.03.png

The site chosen is next to woodland north of Dunsfold Aerodrome and the test track of Top Gear.

Screen Shot 2019-03-08 at 21.13.38.png

UKOG described the well site location as “a discreet field” in “tranquil landscape”. It is off High Loxley Road, a “narrow, winding rural lane, lined with hedgerows and mature trees”.

The company said in the leaflet it had agreed to a land lease and would shortly submit a full planning application to Surrey County Council. If successful, it hoped to begin work late this year or early in 2020.

Which should coincide quite nicely with the start of development of 1,800 homes now consented and planned at the nearby aerodrome?

UKOG said the proposed well site and site access would be screened by woodland,   a small linear area of ancient woodland lies to the north of the site. It was the proximity of proposed oil drilling to ancient woodland which prompted the Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, to decide not to renew a lease on Forestry Commission land last year for an exploration site near Leith Hill, also in Surrey.

There are 13 listed buildings within 1km of the site. Land immediately to the north of the site is designated as an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is also evidence of a buried Roman settlement 500m south of the site, UKOG says.

Dunsfold Google Maps large


UKOG has said it did not need to frack the well because the rock was naturally fractured. It said it may use an acid wash to clean the fractures after drilling. This would use acetic acid, the acid contained in vinegar.

Single well and/or sidetrack

 UKOG said it was seeking initial permission just to drill and flow test one well, “on a limited size well pad”.

But details of working hours and lorry movements referred to drilling an additional side-track, or horizontal well. The purpose of the drilling was to “to find much-needed oil and gas for the UK’s energy security,” and if the operation were successful, the local community could benefit by up to £1m a year in benefits paid by the company in business rates and royalties.

 UKOG has given no more details on the depth of the proposed well but has confirmed that three wells were drilled locally in the 1980s and it aimed to assess their commercial viability. Those wells were drilled on the other side of the aerodrome off Loxwood Rd, Alfold.

A drilling rig said to be up to 37m, would be on site for no more than 60 days. The rest of the equipment was described as low rise and low visual.

The village of Dunsfold has no street lighting. But UKOG said the well site would be lit. It said:

“We will continual monitor the lighting arrangements to ensure we avoid any unacceptable light pollution”

New road junction

The company would need to build a new junction in High Loxley Road and what it described as minor highway improvements at the junction of Dunsfold Road and High Loxley Road.

Two trees would need to be removed where the access track met the public highway to make space for the junction. The scheme would include a 1km compacted stone access track from the road to the well site.

The site itself would be built from compacted stone, surrounded by containment ditches and security fencing with entrance gates, the company said.

Air quality

The company concedes that it would use diesel-fuelled plant and machinery and that gas from the well may be flared. 

Objectors claim: “These operations will result in the release of pollutants to atmosphere and greenhouse gas emissions with a consequential air quality impact.”

The planning application would include an air quality assessment with modelling to show the impact on people and wildlife nearby.

Subsidiary company

The operation would be carried out through a UKOG subsidiary, UKOG (234) Ltd. This is named after PEDL234, the exploration licence area in which the site is based. The PEDL also includes UKOG’s Broadford Bridge well site. Accounts for the year ending December 2017 reported a loss of £2.76m, compared with a loss of £76,000 for the year before.

 Proposed operations, timings and lorry movements

 UKOG proposes the following work at Dunsfold if granted planning permission:

Phase 1

Access and well site construction: 14 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 10 heavy goods vehicles (HGV)/day

Phase 2

Drilling mobilisation: 3 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 10 heavy goods vehicles (HGV)/day

Drilling: 12 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 10 heavy goods vehicles (HGV)/day

Drilling demobilisation: 3 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 10  HGV’s.

Well testing: 26 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 5 HGV’s. 

Sidetrack drilling: 12 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 10 HGV’s. 

Maintenance workover: 4 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 10 HGV’s.

Phase 3

Plugging and abandonment: 3 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 10 HGV’s.

Removal of surface equipment: 2 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 5 HGV’s. 

Phase 4

Site restoration: 5 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 10 HGV’s. 

Or Site retention: 26 weeks, no working hours are given, no lorry movements given, to allow for further application for additional work or production.

Lorry movements, though not stated, are presumed to be two-way.

Public reaction

Online video footage showed that some people seeking to attend the information meeting were not allowed in. Some people complained that the writing in the information leaflet was too small to read easily.

There was also disappointment that the leaflet was no available online or in digital format for people who had been unable to attend the meeting. The leaflet is now available here

UKOG has distributed a questionnaire and DrillOrDrop will ask the company for the analysis of the results.


Surrey County Council ruled on 28 February 2019 that the UKOG proposals for Dunsfold do not need an environmental impact assessment.

Details of the application for a screening request (SO/2019/0002) are on the Waverley Borough Council planning website (search by the request reference)


More prats deserting Waverley’s sinking Tory ship?



With the sound of election drums rolling  across the the borough yet another Hindhead councillor has jumped off the good ship, Waverley.

Councillor Christiaan Hesse’s term as councillor for Hindhead ended just a couple of days ago on March 10th – less than two months before the full council seeks re-election in the May polls.

His sudden departure leaves only Cllr Peter Isherwood (pictured below) carrying the Tory flag for Hindhead.Screen Shot 2019-03-12 at 23.01.49.png

 October last year saw,  another Tory Town Councillor Alex Ford booted out of office for non-attendance.

During his year-long term of office, he did not attend a single meeting! 

What a slap in the face for the residents of Haslemere, battling to retain the countryside from the threat of development?

Tory Councillor Peter Isherwood threw his hat into the ring and won the seat on Haslemere Town Council in a by-election.

Will the people of Haslemere vote for more of the same at a Town Council by-election to-day?

Is this the reason, Councillor Hesse too, is no longer a councillor? Or, has he fallen out of the Tory fold after showing his increasing frustration with many of its decisions?

Screen Shot 2019-03-12 at 23.16.14.png

Perhaps it is time the townsfolk of Haslemere were better served by their elected representatives?

Maybe, just maybe they will stop voting for anyone with a blue rosette regardless, and seek proper representation from those willing to give their time and energies to serve those they have a duty to represent?

And possibly, some of those so long in the tooth, and frankly verging on decrepid, would do themselves, and the rest of us, a big favour by taking up bridge or knitting! 

Where has all the money gone Part 2?​


Some of the locals have been pouring over The Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust – AKA Cranleigh Village Private Nursing Home Trust’s – annual accounts. But, as per usual, this document throws up more questions than answers … A bit like the recent public meeting, despite an excellent presentation by Cranleigh’s Parish Clerk.

You can read that here: Where has all the money gone? Where has all the money gone?

No wonder the Lions Club is asking for its money back.Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 19.39.58.png

The accounts have not been examined by forensic accountants, just Derby & Joan, who found them remarkably vague and underwhelming when it comes to any substance or detail.  All items in black are taken from the CVHT 2018 accounts.

The net assets of the company are stated to be £2,621.656 which is, apparently, all down to the value of the land sold by Cranleigh Parish Council for £1.

Yep, you did read that right. Cranleigh Village Private Nursing Home Trust is valued at £2,621.656 based on its purchase of land from Cranleigh Parish Council for a mere £1!

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 13.41.03.png

DAYLIGHT ROBBERY or something more sinister? The word fraud comes to mind but we don’t want to be hasty …

What nincompoop sold the Parish silver for a measly £1? Particularly when it was valued by the District Valuer at the time at £250,000!

However, CVHT’s valuation figure is entirely false. As we understand this is a perceived value of the land when planning permission for a hospital, day hospital and GP Surgery was granted in 2006.

A consent which lapsed in 2012.

Therefore there is currently no planning permission for any development on the land. So what is its value? 

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 19.24.36.pngStaff costs totalled £24,809 in 2018 which included pension contributions when £7,103 of goods were sold.

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 19.27.22.png

So exactly what were these charitable activities? No explanation is given.

It would appear that Trustee & President Nick Vrijland and wife, have been receiving £12,000 pa and then £9,000 pa in rent for the CVHT shop since its inception – which they conveniently own – until the last few trading, months when it plummeted to £2,250. Yet villagers had been led to believe the shop’s premises were being donated by a generous benefactor. Instead, one of the charity’s Trustees was making money out of the Trust. Conflict of interest or what?

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 19.30.02.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 19.30.58.pngIt is well known within the village that the much-lauded “excellent” relationship that CVHT claims to have with Cranleigh Parish Council and The League of Friends DOES NOT exist. Parish records reveal there have been numerous acrimonious exchanges with parish councillors, over the lack of transparency and information. The League of Friends members sought the resignation of CVHT chairman Robin Fawkner Corbett from The League after CVHT  wanted to forge closer links with The League, including taking over or “combining” its £2m+  funds with the Trust’s meagre funds!

The League’s chairman, Diana Davis, also resigned from CVHT!

 Several of The League’s members have informed the WW that it will, NOT,  UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES hand over funds it has collected from villagers in and around Cranleigh since the 1950s to anyone, in particular, the CVHT.

So, not content with snaffling all the funds Cranleigh residents and businesses raised for a replacement Cottage Hospital, the Privately Owned Care Home they are being fobbed off with is now hell-bent on gaining from the monies the villagers have raised for the existing Cottage Hospital. Funds which continue to be used to serve the local population in a way that the new Care Home cannot, will not and does not want to.

So it would seem that the Trustees are upping their game from DAYLIGHT ROBBERY to DEMANDING MONEY WITH MENACE!

Talk about a farce … it would be funny if it wasn’t so damn’d serious!

Accounts claim that…Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 19.36.07.png So why are the beds now being made available to the residents of Surrey?

Risk identified by the Trust.

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 19.53.06.png

Which quite obviously means, that without consent to build A2Dominion’s (a client of one of the Trustee’s company) that the residential accommodation for health workers, from far and wide,  which contravenes the parish council covenant, this part of the scheme fails!

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 19.35.47.pngLast but not least?

Screen Shot 2019-03-10 at 19.58.30

All we can say is. If WIGWAM has been paid for keeping everyone informed, it would appear WIGWAM has remained comfortably ensconced inside its tent! 


A bit more election fact checking. FACT OR FICTION?










Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 16.14.14.png

Your Godalming & Milford Lib Dem Candidates. More details later 


Here’s one we made earlier with the help of Godalming Tories. It’s the time of year for a little fact checking. Fact or Fiction?

Here at the Waverley Web, we do love the fact that it’s so clearly more about removing THE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Paul Follows than anything remotely to do with the ward or its people!



Guess what – Surrey is not as wealthy as people think.


Surrey is not as wealthy or healthy as many people think it is, says the county council’s leader. 

Speaking at Surrey’s Health and Wellbeing Board recently Tim Oliver said: “Many people see Surrey as a leafy, wealthy and healthy county and for a huge part of it that is the case.

“But there are huge parts of significant pockets of deprivation.”

However, David Munro – Surrey’s Police & Crime Commissioner contradicted him saying – Surrey is a wealthy community – and should be doing more to deal with its drug-related problems.

With 1.1 million people living in Surrey, it is still one of the most densely populated shire counties in England with “pockets of deprivation”.

Figures show there are over 23,000 children in Surrey living in poverty and 10,600 five to 15-year-olds have a mental health disorder. It has an ageing population, with dementia a particular issue.

In the next 10 years, the number of people aged 65 and over is expected to rise by 18% and the number of carers aged 85 and over will increase by 31%. Data from the strategy states that in 2015 approximately one in 25 people aged over 65 lived in care homes in Surrey with the figure expected to rise by 60% by 2030.

However, he failed to mention that the vast number of those living in Surrey’s care homes not only fund their own care but also subsidise huge numbers of other under-funded county council- residents’ packages of care!

He claimed the county had missed out on funding in the past because areas of deprivation were not always seen and hoped that a review of Fairer Funding for local authorities taking this into account would open up more funding channels for Surrey.

He said the “strong average performance” of people leading healthier lives in the county masks areas where there was inequality.

He also fails to mention the large number of Surrey residents who fund their own private healthcare! And, who work for free, and support the large  voluntary sector.

Criticising the Council’s 10-year Strategy, David Munro, Surrey’s Police and Crime Commissioner, said it did not do enough to tackle the effect of drugs.

He said: “The effect of drugs is not given the priority it clearly needs. We all know drugs are a danger to the user, a danger to their family and friends and a danger to the community. We have a duty as a wealthy community in Surrey to stamp on this much more than we have been doing.”

However, Helen Atkinson, director of public health, said drugs were prioritised in the plan which looked at tackling substance misuse including the “huge problem” of alcohol use in the county.

Who are you putting your money on? Captain Potts or Captain Bob?


Getting Waverley’s Local Plan over the finish line is a bit like a Carry On Film – ‘Carry on Regardless!’



        Waverley’s Leader – Cllr Julia Potts – v – 


 Captain Bob Lies, or is it Able Semen master of all he surveys at the helm of  SS Protect Our Waverley. 

Here’s an interesting quote from Captain Julia aboard SS Waverley in response to a Government sanction on councils, including Waverley, for under delivering its housing supply.


Does she realise this could mean less housing in the long run, but MORE houses in the short-term to accommodate the Waverley buffer? 
Are the Neighbourhood Plans actually threatened? Most quotas contained in the Neighbourhood Plans of Waverley’s towns and villages have already been met!

Hmm… interesting…very interesting? You can read why in the link below.

Waverley has been sanctioned by the Government for under delivering its housing supply.
Lady at the helm of Good Ship Waverley – Julia Potts, said:

“This news is obviously extremely disappointing for us, but we will, of course, be vigorously defending our adopted Local Plan; the plan we believe represents the best possible vision for the borough’s future.
“It means we can work in partnership with the borough’s towns and parishes to develop Neighbourhood Plans, so communities can mould new development where they live. It means we can safeguard our borough against inappropriate development.
“It should be remembered that Waverley did not bring this legal action, but we have to defend both the borough and town and parish councils, whose Neighbourhood Plans are now threatened by this action. We all want appropriate plan-led development and we did everything possible at the inspection to defend a lower housing number.
“It is extremely disappointing that a few determined individuals continue to raise these legal challenges, despite the High Court upholding the Local Plan following the hearing in October 2018 and despite it having been approved by a government inspector.
“We are committed to preserving and protecting the adopted Local Plan. It will remain our principal planning document and continue to guide our planning decisions.”

It’s the time of year for a​ little fact checking. Fact or Fiction?


herbertwells-front-the-invisible-man-1529161114658Have you read any good works of fiction lately?

 Had any leaflets thrust through your letterboxes?

Now – we all know that Godalming’s Tory  Councillors work tirelessly for us here in the town that is home to Waverley Towers…

Don’t we?

We will completely ignore the fact that one of our Tory Godalming borough and town councillors is presently residing as a guest of Her Majesty and was forced to hand over his Town Council mayoral chain and seat to others!  Because it might be churlish to mention it? So whisper who dares.

However, we will not sit idly by and ignore the lies, damn lies and statistics being scattered like mildew seed corn through the doors of townsfolk. Leaflets, funded by Tory HQ and featured below.

“Hard work behind the scenes saving Green Oaks School?”

WW can tell you who put in the hard work. Green Oaks PTA – parents, and Godalming’s new boy on the block – Cllr Paul Follows!

Ten out of Ten to the Tories for coming up with a work of fiction so well-crafted it should qualify for its own series on Netflix featuring the silent superhero Cllr Andrew Bolton. A man rarely seen and seldom heard. A man from whom residents’ questions seldom receive an acknowledgement, let alone a reply.  He’s pictured below with Busbridge’s own Invisible Man, Cllr Peter Martin, someone so busy and multi -hatted, he’s never been seen in public! Except of course like now – at election time! Or perhaps when resigning as SCC chairman after apologising and admitting he had shown a lack of “cultural awareness and good judgement” in an interview for a member of staff.  

Well, folks – together with Andrew-Bolton from the Blue – they have just shown another example of ” lack of good judgement.” Because the residents of Godalming cannot be fooled!

Tales of the unexpected as Surrey’s Mr Tickle resigns.

The disingenuous triple-hatted politician – Surrey County,  Waverley Borough and Godalming Town Council –  Peter Martin had been briefing local politicians that Green Oaks School would CLOSE. Indeed his note to Jeremy Hunt MP tipped him off that CLOSURE  would be the CERTAIN outcome of the ‘public consultation’.  

MP and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt then sent out this  ill-advised press comment:

“It is a great shame that Green Oaks CofE Primary School is set to close and I fully appreciate the concerns of parents who are understandably worried about what will happen to their children and where they will continue their education.

Surrey County Council and the diocese did not take this decision lightly but regrettably the fact remains that the number of pupils are down and in these difficult financial times, the council feels it can better use this resource at an alternative school,” he said.

“I have been assured that the Diocese of Guildford, Surrey CC, and local councillors are trying to do all they can to support the school and its community during this difficult time.”

We understand Peter Martin had tried to brief local councillors in an email seen by us saying:

“It has been agreed that in the best interest of the community involved, all public statements will not scapegoat or blame. There is no party political gain here and Peter guarantees that his party will be silent on this issue and the Lib Dems would also be silent.”

That campaign turned out well for them then!

Because the Lib Dems were anything but silent – putting their weight firmly behind Godalming parents and Green Oaks was saved from the Tory axe.

WW thinks this comment says it all!  As we have said so often in the past. TELL THE TRUTH OR SOMEONE WILL TELL IT FOR YOU.

Screen Shot 2019-03-08 at 15.43.01.png


image2.jpegOur advice to Godalming Tories – and for that matter other politicians of any party that try to dupe the public.


Where has all the money gone?


Where has all the money gone, long time passing?
Where has all the money gone, long time ago?
Where has all the money gone?
CVHT has robbed us all, every one
Oh, when will the Parish Council ever learn, when will WE ever learn?


Screen Shot 2019-03-07 at 08.36.32.png

A Cranleigh Lion holds aloft a picture of the cheque it handed over to Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust as Adrian Clarke (left) asks for the Lions a highly respected local organisation to have its money returned. It wants to give it to the deserving people it suports – and not a commercial care home and community beds for Surrey people!



That’s what the majority of Cranleigh residents, who queued up on a cold, dank Wednesday evening waiting to enter the Village Hall, wanted to know.

The Parish Council was responsible for the hold-up. One dressed as a Leprechaun was busy flipping backwards and forwards through the Electoral Roll handing out yellow slips to Cranleigh residents who were obliged to give name, rank and house number to confirm their eligibility to speak at the meeting. Damn – we left our arachnoid dental records behind…again!

‘Next!’ said the Leprechaun briskly. ‘Not a Cranleigh resident? Well, you can come in but you’re not permitted to speak. Next …’

Who do these people think they are?

They kept the public – most of whom were the wrong side of 60 – waiting for up to half an hour, in the drizzle, to enter a public building for a meeting called by THE PUBLIC and then told them who could speak, how often and for how long!

Did we miss something?

We thought these people were elected by the people of Cranleigh to represent the people of Cranleigh, not to dictate to them. As for the Leprechaun …. well, what can we say? We, at the Waverley Web, have always maintained that put a blue rosette on a donkey and the people of Waverley would vote for it but a Leprechaun … ‘What the *uck’s that all about?’ as the youngest, newest (and most uncouth) recruit to the Waverley Web’s growing network of correspondents said!

Once the audience finally gained their seats and the meeting commenced it was running half an hour late thanks to the Leprechaun’s antics with the yellow slips. Did she not realise that most people were on a tight schedule, hoping to be home in time to watch BBC2’s much-trailered Mother, Father, Son?

Chairman of the Parish Council, Liz Townsend, informed the meeting that – and we hasten to add we paraphrase – that the Parish Council didn’t really want to be there but they’d been forced to call the meeting by six parishioners who’d demanded one. Plebs!

We won’t bore you with the bylaws that were invoked, suffice to say the Parish Council were there under duress. Oh, and by the way, no one from Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust (CVHT) had been prepared to attend and ‘face the music’. Nor, for that matter, was anyone from HC-One there either – the private care home provider that is benefiting from the largess of Cranleigh residents who fund-raised for a new village hospital and day hospital but are being palmed off with a private care home, in case you’re wondering. There’s an expression for it:

daylight robbery!

It was left to Adrian Clark, on behalf of Cranleigh Lions, to point out that the Lions had given CVHT a whopping £45,000, the largest single donation Cranleigh Lions had ever made – apparently, the biggest donation they usually make is circa £500, just to put their munificence into perspective. And Jim McAllister, on behalf of Dunsfold Park, who pointed out that his company had provided, both in kind and in cash, the equivalent of circa £140,000 to CVHT.

Both donors made it abundantly clear that whilst they had been enthusiastic supporters of CVHT when they had understood the trustees to be raising money to provde a new hospital to replace the existing cottage hospital, they would not have been remotely supportive had they been aware that CVHT was going to fritter their donations on a highly successful, privately owned, for-profit care home which could well afford to finance its own money-making enterprise.

Both gentlemen said they wanted their money back so that it could be redistributed to other, more needy and worthwhile local charities. Good point well made Messrs Adrian Clarke and Jim McAllister. Cranleigh residents were heartily behind them and demonstrated their support with ringing applause.

There were, of course, a few stooges in the audience who sang the praises of the proposal to build a new, privately owned, for-profit care home – Parish Councillor Rosemary Burrbridge  being one of them – but the majority of the audience wanted to know why the Parish Council had sold Parish owned land to CVHT for £1 and why it had, later, not enforced the covenant attached to the sale of the land and taken the land back when it had the opportunity to do so?

Another important question that no one asked is why there was a ransom strip around the land which was exchanged, who put it there and who benefits from it? But we’ll come to that later.

Unfortunately, none of those Parish Councillors who were present were Parish Councillors at the time that the land swap was effected and although the Clerk had done a sterling job trawling through the paperwork and past Minutes in order to provide a chronology of where we are and how we got here more might have been achieved if the architects of the scheme – namely Needless to say Patricia wife of the late Brian – former parish council chairman and herself a parish councillor at the time kept shtumn.

Nick Vrijland (President of CVHT and, we believe after some trawling of our own, the beneficiary of the aforementioned Ransom Strip)
Robin Fawkner-Corbett (Chairman of CVHT)
John Bainbridge (Trustee)
David Graham-Smith (Trustee)
Andy Leahy (Trustee)
Brian Cheesman (Trustee)
David Barry (Trustee)
Nigel Roberts (Trustee)

Christina Pearce (between 2002 and June 2018 Christina was the administrator, volunteer coordinator, gift shop manager, fundraiser, secretary to the Trustees and general factotum of CVHT – a position for which she was paid handsomely – some claim far too handsomely and that was where a lot of CVHT’s funds went!) –

had been present to answer questions from the public.

If only these Trustees (who are, predominantly, pale, male and stale and, in some cases, former members of Cranleigh Parish Council) had had the courtesy and the courage to attend the meeting and give an account of themselves and their actions, Cranleigh residents might have felt it was worth their while turning out. As it was, they might just as well have stayed home and tuned into Coronation Street for all the good it did them. There are already calls for another PUBLIC meeting to be chaired by THE PUBLIC at which CVHT will be, TOLD,  NOT ASKED – to turn up!

In the past, Mr Vrijland has enjoyed strutting around the village making a great deal of his status as a so-called benefactor to the people of Cranleigh but where was he last night? Neither he nor Mr Leafy – who have both made a shed-load of dosh out of Cranleigh by developing the former West Cranleigh Nurseries, AKA the Knowle Park Initiative, were anywhere to be seen. And not a peep out of either of them about their extra-curricular development activities in Cranleigh in their profiles on the CVHT website. Coy or just deliberately hiding their bushels of cash out of the light?

Now here’s a thought: maybe, just maybe, Messrs Vrijland and Leafy would like to give back to the people of Cranleigh the £2 million local businesses, charities and residents raised and donated to CVHT so it can be redistributed to other more deserving local good causes. And, at the same time, perhaps Mr Vrijland would like to return to Cranleigh Parish Council the ransom strip he purloined along the way in the hope they will now take better care of it than Messrs Bainbridge and Cheesman did during their stewardship as Cranleigh Parish Councillors! Just a thought …

On its website CVHT tell us ‘Discussions with stakeholders highlighted the shortfall in affordable rental accommodation in the Cranleigh area for healthcare workers, leading to possible difficulties in both the recruitment and retention of staff. To overcome this, an accommodation block on the Knowle Lane site with 26 affordable units is proposed. This accommodation will be made available to anyone working in healthcare locally.’

Er, call us naive but why didn’t Messrs Vrijland and Leafy set aside 26 affordable units at their Knowle Park Initiative development for healthcare workers? Could it be something to do with them being very happy to dig deep into the pockets of Cranleigh residents but not their own …?

Some bright spark asked for a vote of those in favour of the privately owned care home. 27, yellow slip waving hands, were in favour and 12 against. We can only presume that the abstaining majority of over 150 couldn’t see the point in voting because they realised they’d been stitched up by CVHT … and we’re not talking surgical stitches here. Does it hurt? You bet it does … but only when they laugh!

And, Cranleigh people are not laughing. Particularly Andy (Flash) Photographer Webb who left before the meeting started because the man born in Cranleigh now lives in Alfold, and who contributed money like many thousands of others, from the nearby villages was told he couldn’t speak!

Wanna bet! – You sign up and log on to the Cranleigh Community Group and see for yourselves whether he can speak or not? 


Is Waverley’s Umming Bird looking for a new nesting site?



Word on the street suggests that Waverley’s Leader might be taking flight, or do we mean fright?


Despite succeeding where her predecessors have failed – in almost getting a LOCAL PLAN past the finish line, getting the Blightwells development under-way – and pushing up Waverley’s housing numbers – and the council tax – Leader Julia may be taking flight from her “safe” Tory seat in Farnham Upper Hale.

Waverley Borough Council’s Julia Potts, who is prone to a bit of umming and ahhing, is considering becoming a little more decisive in the lead-up to the May elections. She believes she may have difficulty hanging on to her seat as Farnham people are getting angry, very angry.

Some Farnham residents are even suggesting that it is time to break away from Waverley Borough Council altogether. But hasn’t Farnham already tried that with a petition to the Queen? Last we heard that petition was buried under a pile of dust and cobwebs, a bit like us here at the Waverley Web. Is it in a Government department vault, or has it gone to THE TOWER?

Council tax going up and up!

So could the public-spirited the former Pi**ed off Portfolio for Planning (POPP) be handing over his far safer seat at Frensham, Dockenfield & Tilford to his Tory colleague? Only time will tell – not long now folks.

Screen Shot 2019-03-01 at 18.27.36.png


‘Moanalot Munro gets​ mouthy after losing Surrey Police & Crime Commissioner job.


hustingsIt’s not unusual for Tory Tossers to sling their toys out of their prams when they don’t get their own way – but surely David Munro’s behaviour following his de-selection as Surrey’s Police & Crime Commissioner was a bit OTT? Even for him. Guess losing the plumply salaried job was a bit of a blow for the serial glory-seeking politician who is photographed more often than Meghan Markle. But,  to be pushed aside by a woman and Alfold’s Bobby – no longer on the beat. WOW!

Charlotte Alice Chorico – a qualified Criminal Solicitor beat Alfold’s  Waverley Borough Councillor Kevin Deanus to take the top nomination, by just a narrow margin – 20 votes.

Was DM about to take defeat gracefully? Not bloody likely – with a face like a slapped arse it was obvious to everyone involved he wanted to stamp his DM’s all over both of them. He believed having shoved up the council tax to employ 100 more officers for the county – saying – “I want to win again like I did in 2016” his future job was in the bag?

The arrogant Mr Munro asked the lady in waiting:


“Why if the incumbent is doing such a good job, can you justify standing against him. When she replied:

Said Charlotte Alice Chorico: “It’s called democracy.”


At which point she was selected and DM threw down his rattle and his jellycat and stomped off without congratulating his successor.

After one questioner from SW Surrey Conservatives asked  Mr Munro what he would do about the potholes in the lovely area of Waverley? Perhaps someone should tell the dozey Cllr TT Jeanette Stennett – That roads are a county matter and nothing whatsoever to do with the Police.

Another member present said that he found the partisan behaviour displayed by sections of the audience rather distasteful. He claimed that Guildford councillors seemed to be mainly supporting Kevin Deanus while those from SW Surrey remained loyal to David Munro, who in 2016 recaptured the role of PCC for the Conservatives from an Independent. Saying afterwards: “He had won the position back and was hung out to dry.”

Guildford Conservative Association chairman Bob Hughes, who was also at the selection meeting said: “In choosing our Police Commissioner Candidate, Surrey Conservatives had three excellent people to choose from.

“Cllr Kevin Deanus is a leading figure in Guildford Conservatives and I know that many turned out to support him, but Charlie [Chorico] is clearly a rising star who will be an excellent commissioner, and I know that Guildford will support her enthusiastically.

Perhaps not all Captain Bob?

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

PS. Does this now mean the DM will be haunting Farnham’s doorsteps in the May elections? Oh! No – not again – we thought he had given us up years ago?

The donors of £1.5m want to know why their ‘HOSPITAL & Day Hospital’ has​ morphed into a PRIVATE CARE HOME and 20 beds for the people of Surrey?



Village leaders have agreed to calls from the public to allow them to hold a Public Meeting.

Six residents including Mr Terence Bachelor asked for a meeting to be held.

 The Parish Council might find themselves in the hot seat when they are required to provide some answers to the residents of Cranleigh and nearby villages. 

Let’s hope The Cranleigh Village Hospital Trustees will tell it as it is, and attempt  to satisfy residents concerns too?


  • Meetings in 2013 with the Charity were held in SECRET by the late Brian Ellis former CPC Chairman – where a  Restrictive Covenant on the land transfer was changed, despite the concern of councillors Ken and Ruth Reed. 

He said: “As much as we trust our parish council to work in the interest of the village, we can see this project changing.”

WHY? Has the Chamber of Trade changed its view? Secretary Jane O’Leary said: “Residents are frustrated by an apparent lack of openness.”

A REPLACEMENT THE HOSPITAL for which villagers fundraised over £1.5m  has now morphed into something very different.  Proving those earlier concerns were founded.

Now residents want to know, WHY  parish land sold for £1 – will now be handed over on a platter by CVHT to HC-One headed by Mr Chai Patel – a national Care Management Group owners of 350 homes with 19,000 residents.


Planning for an  80-bed Private Care Home, and 20 Community Beds has met numerous delays, having been promised as a replacement for Cranleigh Hospital and Day Hospital for almost 20 years! Now exasperated villagers say they have waited – “long enough for answers” despite numerous attempts to extract them  from the Charity by the Cranleigh Community Group – the Village noticeboard.

Now, the muddy waters of Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust’s scheme have become mired in further controversy following a posting by Cranleigh Society Secretary – Sue Dale, with answers provided by CVHT.

The following throws up more questions than the answers.

Screen Shot 2019-03-02 at 17.36.54

  • So the charity does not actually know how the 20 beds will be used – or who is going to pay for them? Really!
  • So – the NHS will not commit to anything until the planning permission is in place?  No risk there then?
  • So there is no legal, binding agreement with the county council either? Because it will depend on where the need comes from? Bizarre!
  • So exactly what is the model of care?
  • Is a 5-year contract – which is non-existent and renewable every five years going to satisfy Waverley Planners? Does it intend to grant planning permission on a WING and a PRAYER?
  • The CCG (Care Commissioning Group will approve and allocate beds? What exactly is a “cross-section” of requirement?
  • How will they prioritise the residents Of Cranleigh and villages? Keep beds open just in case?
  • HC-ONE will provide the CARE? – What CARE – NURSING CARE? Care homes are staffed by Carers – not State Registered Nurses.  CRANLEIGH VILLAGE HOSPITAL HAD A MATRON – SISTERS – STAFF NURSES!
  • Dr Falkner Corbett claims Cranleigh Village Hospital will have an MRI Scanner soon? CVHT is nothing to do with the League of Friends. How will the League of Friends be raising the money? From the public? and who will that scanner be used by? Surrey residents?
  • A 26 – room hostel block added to the scheme will be provided for Surrey care workers?  

Chai Patel owner of HC-ONE was recently quoted as saying:

“Investing in the Care Home Sector can still be a winner.”

Sounds like a winner for you Mr Patel – and a loser for the village dubbed by Waverley as “Poor old Cranleigh.’

Because Court Canvedish which owns HC-ONE has just sold off all its UK Social Care business to Australian Pensions Giant AMP and is seeking a buyer for its CARE HOME business HC-ONE. So could the proposed new partner of Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust be an Ozzie – or the Chinese – or the Russians?

The other winner is Surrey County Council. Closes down a 65-bed Nursing and Dementia Home – and takes 20 community beds with the NHS on a budget which has not been approved and operated by HC-ONE – a private provider. SCC sells its Longfields, Cranleigh site for – housing? and trousers the money?

The Waverley Web will be at the meeting. Hanging as usual, from one of the dusty corners of Cranleigh Village Hall – if we can find it?animated-spider-image-0201




The locals are gearing up for yet another Dunsfold protest.



Screen Shot 2019-02-26 at 11.06.07.png

Here at the Waverley Web, we took the news seriously – hence this post... Is Dunsfold Village’s very own Drill or Drop – on its way?

Apparently, Dunsfold Parish Council knew about the proposal a week or so before we, and the community, heard about it, but decided it didn’t warrant further attention!!!

However, John Grey, the Parish and WBC Councillor realised this was a serious matter and needed attention. He alerted Waverley, submitted questions to UKOG and turned up at the public meeting last Sunday.

However, Dunsfold Parish Councillor Stephen Haines did turn up for the public meeting.  One of the guys pictured next to the serving hatch we believe?

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 15.06.09.pngDunsfold doesn’t normally get 120 or so people turning out on a Sunday to meetings so it looks like the parish pump wallers may now be taking things seriously?

Congratulations Beverley. Another act in the Awfold pantomime ?

They obviously don’t want oil wells, as well as thousands of homes in their backyards? No doubt all the usual parish councils will be working with Protect Our Waverley, and Crystal Tips Weddell will be collecting shedloads more taxpayers’ cash to fund the fight? Just to recap – last time she collected £276,000 to fight off development at Dunsfold Aerodrome- so that £50,000 VAT could be reclaimed and paid out to lawyers to fight ‘Your Waverley who gives them the Precept, to help them to do so!

Go girl go?

Residents heard  UK Oil and Gas outline its plans to drill for oil near Dunsfold village at the aptly named site – PRATTS CORNER? However, opponents of oil exploration across southern England stirred up the locals to challenge the company about its plans in the village.

Environmentalist, Nicola Peel, who campaigned against UKOG’s operation at Broadford Bridge, told the audience:

“You need to ask UKOG very specific questions.”

John Gray, the village’s representative on Waverley Borough Council, said:

“It is very much down to people of Dunsfold to get themselves organised”.

Well – he should know a thing or two about that! He has been working, behind the scenes, with the ProtectOr Waverley Group – who together with the CPRE have been opposing development in Dunsfold for years, at huge cost to the very same borough council of which he is a member!

Julian Neal, a member of Markwells Wood Watch, said villagers should lobby their MPs and councillors. He said the Conservative MP, Penny Mordant, had supported his group’s campaign against UKOG’s proposals at Markwells Wood:

“I was able to convince Penny Mordant in a hour-and-a-half meeting of the environmental and public health dangers of the Markwells Wood proposals.”

The first indication of UKOG’s plans for Dunsfold emerged just over a week ago when letters were distributed in the village on 15 February 2019. (DrillOrDrop 

UKOG said it was looking at a site northeast of the village. It did not identify the exact location but residents described the site as Pratt’s Corner.

A Don’t Drill Dunsfold Facebook page was established within hours of the UKOG letters being distributed and Sunday’s meeting was organised days later. The venue changed to a larger room because too many people wanted to attend.

UKOG issued a press statement last week to address questions it said it was being asked about the plans for Dunsfold.

The company’s chief executive, Stephen Sanderson, said he hoped to “fully engage” with residents.  He accused, what he described as, “well-known and ill-informed scaremongers” of “circulating fiction” about the company’s plans for exploratory drilling in Dunsfold.

WW has ascertained from local records that similar Drilling took place in Alfold in the 1990s  and although there was a public outcry, exploratory drilling went ahead near the village school. It took a matter of weeks, gas was found – there was no disruption or nuisance, but no further drilling took place.

Screen Shot 2019-02-28 at 20.43.59.png

Nobody says it better​.


As the song goes…

Nobody says it half as good as you – Mr David Wylde.

However, ‘Your Waverley” is sticking to its mantra – “Blightwells Yard will be a HUUUUUUGE success – and will produce HUUUUUGE sums for the next 150 Years.

Let’s Hope the Waverley Web is still in existence so that it can give a HUUUGE round of applause to Tory-controlled Waverley and Tory Controlled Surrey Councils for making such a wise investment?

Screen Shot 2019-03-02 at 09.46.57.png

Here’s the shop situation so far. Oh and by the way. The ANCHOR STORE – Sainsbury’s – has been operating in Farnham’s South Street for donkeys (30)years! And ASK is closing restaurants all over the country. Not that we want to pee on ‘Your Waverley’s’ parade.



All roads lead to riches​ , ​don’t they? Especially when they live in Cranleahy.


Everything changes – and everything stays the same – in “Poor old Cranleigh.”

A Cranleigh resident sent us this news cutting taken from a local paper – didn’t say which one – we presume the Sorry Ad –  dated 1987?

And – you wouldn’t Adam and Eve it – but the name Nick Vrijland lept  off the page as 30 years ago when Cllr Elwyn Williams was chairman of Cranleigh ~Parish Council the Flying Dutchman wanted to do a – yes – you guessed – “a land swap.” What for – we hear you cry  – was it for a Private Nursing Home or a hospital – no it was for a “small amount of development” and a service road through Knowle Park with local builder the late Mr Gordon Thomas. 

Now – unlike the land swap that took place in 2002 – with the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust – the earlier land swap was viewed with slightly more than a little scepticism by the  Wily Cllr Williams.

However, it would appear that if you hang on in there – all your dreams will come true because the Knowle Park ~Inititative has been approved by Waverley including a new road – but the scheme has hit the buffers because the Environment Agency has objected to the owners moving the stream and upsetting the wildlife.

Perhaps the Environment Agency has decided to act as the same developer dredged the Cranleigh Waters on his West Cranleigh ~Nurseries land, which altered the flow of the river further downstream,  affecting other development in Elmbridge?

 “Oh what a tangled web you weave when once you practise to deceive.”

EA objection to Parkland 15-01-19

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 20.27.39.pngScreen Shot 2019-01-24 at 20.28.01.png

Knowle Park1.jpegWe are including a pdf of the article you can enjoy reading it word for word. Knowle Park2

So Clogs away…

The moral of the tale: If at first you don’t succeed – try, try and try again! Because that “modest little amount of housing” became 265+. And the other little land swap for a Hospital and a Day Hospital morphed into an 80-bed Private CARE Home! We have updated our earlier post – because even we are totally confused. Because WW thought it was a NURSING HOME. Big difference – care workers not nurses!! 

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 17.00.23.png

Waverley has been sanctioned by the Government for under delivering its housing supply.


 No surprises there then that our borough council has been sanctioned by the Government for under delivering its housing supply.  – although one might argue that, given the sausage factory panache, with which Waverley’s planners have been banging out planning consents one might be forgiven for wondering WHY?

Well, here’s part of the answer:  Here we go, here we go, here we go Ooooh!



Q Q: Why?

A: Because of all the developments already consented in Waverley approximately 400/500 of 1800 that could, and should, have been built on a brownfield site at Dunsfold Aerodrome – NONE HAVE BEEN BUILT … yet.

All thanks to the antics of that troublesome twosome – Protect our Waverley (POW) and The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) – aided and abetted by the meddling Mistress Milton, and Jeremy SHUNT – who, shall henceforth be known as – ‘Waverley’s Old Buffers’ (WOB’s.’)  Together they were, and are,  dedicated to stopping development at Dunsfold Park so they can support building over the countryside! Had these unreconstructed NIMBYs bowed to the inevitable and accepted that the biggest brownfield site in the borough was the obvious place for housing, rather than trying to stop it by hook or by crook, housing development at the Aerodrome would now be well under way, thus enabling Waverley to demonstrate that it IS delivering on the planning consents it had granted.


One-third of local authorities face a sanction under the government’s new housing delivery test this year and these include both WAVERLEY & GUILDFORD.

The delivery test was introduced in last July’s revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It applies sanctions to all local planning authorities that, in the three years up to the preceding April, failed to meet 95% of their housing requirement, with the severity of the sanction varying according to the extent of the under-performance.

Under the test’s criteria, all local authorities delivering under 95% of their housing requirement must now produce an action plan detailing the reasons why they are under-delivering and how they will address it. 

Those under 85% of their requirement, which includes, Waverley and Guildford, must add a 20% buffer to their five-year housing land supply requirement, instead of the usual 5% buffer, and produce an – ACTION PLAN.

Meanwhile, the worst performers – those under 25% in November 2018, rising to 45% in November 2019 and 65% in November 2020 – face the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development.


Does that mean THAT THE LAND ADJACENT TO AARONS HILL in Godalming, in the borough of Guildford  COMES BACK ONLINE?

Fortunately, none have fallen under 25% which means no local authority faces the presumption penalty – this year. Which means that 66% of councils – exactly two-thirds – have escaped any penalty at all – this year. In comparison, research by Planning last November found that 120 local authorities – 62% – would be above the 95% threshold and face no delivery test sanction at all.

Research suggests our borough is among the 38% of councils would have to produce an action plan, and is also the 31% required to have a 20% buffer in their housing land supply to boost delivery.

Has POW and CPRE (WOB’s) learnt anything from their mistakes?

Have they hell!

Having secured yet another Judicial Review into Waverley’s Local Plan, which wastes shed loads more of Waverley taxpayer’s dosh. In the interim THE WOB’s cloak themselves in yet another cost protection order (the infamous Aahrus Convention enabling NIMBYs like CPRE and POW to play fast and loose at the expense of ordinary taxpayers’ money without fear of incurring prohibitive costs.) While they increase delays in housing delivery.

The upshot is. That even if they do manage to secure a so-called victory by reducing Waverley’s housing numbers, those housing numbers will now automatically increase because of the delays in delivery. You really couldn’t make it up!




Will ‘Your Waverley’ ever learn?


WAVERLEY Borough Council has been accused of disrespecting the five employees of Farnham United Breweries who lost their lives in the First World War after painting over a commemorative plaque on the outside wall of the revamped Memorial Hall.



Screen Shot 2019-02-27 at 10.10.31.png

Taken from the Farnham Herald. 


Farnham’s new £3.27m health and wellbeing centre re-opened last year on West Street following extensive building works, provides a new home for the Brightwells Gostrey Centre for older people,  Waverley Training Services, and, where possible, its previous users.

However, as part of the work, the council repainted the outside of the building – obscuring a plaque above its main entrance dedicated to the lives of Private George William Ayres, Private Mark William George Glazier, Charles Thomas Hawkins, Frederick Charles Mansey and John Baden-Powell Wallace.

Taking umbrage at the council’s actions, Scott Bell of the Farnham Great War Group said: “The Farnham Memorial Hall has recently been enlarged and upgraded and the work is now finished.

“On the front of the hall is a memorial plaque naming the five soldiers to whom it is dedicated, all employees of Farnham United Brewery who gave their lives fighting in the Great War

“Imagine my surprise and horror to see the plaque has now been painted over in brilliant white along with the whole wall so it is not possible to read their names.

“The Farnham Great War Group visited the battlefield where he died and laid a wreath in memory of one of the men, Private GW Ayres, in 2017, exactly 100 years after he was killed.

“He has no known grave and is commemorated on the Arras War Memorial along with nearly 35,000 of his comrades who also have no known grave.

“In a way, the Memorial Hall is his known commemoration and surely all who go there should be able to read his name and the other four names of his comrades?

“Before the hall was altered the plaque stood out and was a sandstone colour contrasting with the background wall and with the names clearly legible. I am no expert but feel the plaque should be carefully cleaned and reinstated to its original form.”

Responding to Mr Bell by email, Kelvin Mills, Waverley Borough Council’s head of communities and major projects, said: “The historical relevance of the Memorial Hall to Farnham was foremost in our thoughts as the hall was being refurbished.“In fact each of our main rooms is named in memory of the five soldiers named on the memorial plaque; in addition, we have erected five silent soldiers at the forefront of the hall and embedded the history within all our marketing material.

“The plaque was painted to raise the profile of those employees who gave their lives in the Great War. It was refurbished in line with its original form. However, we agree with your description that the names are somewhat difficult to read and it is our intention to bring out the names more clearly, as we have already done with the Latin inscription above.

“We have identified a firm capable of this detailed piece of work and are looking to confirm dates when this work can be carried out.

“It is our intention to do this as soon as possible.”

Breaking News. Ewhurst Appeal at Larkfield allowed by the Government.


Screen Shot 2019-01-19 at 10.50.06

Might just as well ditch the ballot box, and all the huffing and puffing at ‘Your Waverley’ because the Government wants to blow them all down and continue to allow development in the countryside.

Ignoring the views of local residents are becoming an everyday occurrence as to-day Waverley Borough Council lose yet another planning appeal. This time for 59 homes on land outside the settlement boundary of Ewhurst. Rendering yet another Neighbourhood Plan useless.

So there you have it. Two homes built by Berkeley Homes just 20 years ago will be demolished to make way for  47 new homes can be built – 15 of which will be “affordable” on land at Firethorn Farm. Land owned by a former Ewhurst resident who has bu**ered off to live in the rural Hampshire countryside. Same resident who trousered millions after receiving planning permission on appeal for Larkfield.

Trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders will require removal, but then that’s not a problem is it?  As for the Neighbourhood Plan – here’s what the Inspector thinks of that little nuisance document that villagers have spent many months putting together!  

Screen Shot 2019-02-26 at 10.31.42.pngIn the meantime developers, Miller Homes are busy covering another part of Ewhurst in concrete, completely destroying the hedge along the entire length of the access road at Backward Point off the Cranleigh Road, Ewhurst. A hedge which has been destroyed by concrete sets laid down against the hedge which has completely destroyed the hedge’s its root system, and now leaves the nearby properties completely exposed.

Screen Shot 2019-02-26 at 10.37.24.png

Here is the decision. A decision that will rock the socks off Waverley Planners who may find themselves in trouble with the Government as they may once again find themselves not performing against the critical data as they continue to lose major appeals. 

PS. No objection from Protect Our Waverley or the Campaign for The Preservation of Rural England. The Surrey Hills AONB, which overlooks the site –  made the fact that it had no objection known to the Inspector.

Firethorn Farm Ewhurst – Appeal Decision

Have you wondered why the decision to close recycling centres and libraries have​ been deferred until October?​


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

Recycling Centres – v – Children’s Centres.





Has the Silly Season arrived early at the Sorry Advertiser this year?


We know the daffodils are sprouting and the sap is rising – but have the Cranleigh birds been singing just a little too loud and long to the local rag about the siting of Cranleigh’s new leisure centre? 

Whose cunning plan was that, WW wonders, to frighten the voting fodder witless?

We’re aware that Dunsfold Airfield may soon have oil-wells springing up along its runway (journalistic licence for gas exploration, in the Dunsfold environs!) but a £14m leisure centre too?

Somehow, we doubt it!

We haven’t asked the Flying Scotsman to confirm or deny the rumour – as we think he must still be miffed with us for publishing his off-line invite to the ungrateful Denise Wordsworth to join him for tea and biscuits, for he never responds to our emails … and he’s certainly never invited us round for tea!)

But in this particular instance, we think we can safely speak for him. Because if he had thousands of Cranleigh New town’s residents rocking up on his doorstep for a swim and a jog around the parkland, there ’d be hell-to-pay from the Provisional Wing of Protect Our Waverley. They may have gone preternaturally quiet since losing all their Judicial Reviews but that’s just made them even more determined to look for an opportunity to take the steam out of the Flying Scot’s funnel at finally bagging 1,800 – 2,300 homes. His sporran must over-floweth!

However, we understand there’s considerable angst amongst Waverley officers – our moles there are very reliable – because, thanks to Cranleigh Parish Council handing over a piece of parish land it once owned to a local charity for a private care home – the new leisure centre may have to stay exactly where it is! If it’s demolished the centre will be closed for a couple of years and clubs and members of the public will have, perforce, to take a dip in the lakes which the generous Mr Vrijland intends to build in the nearby Knowle Park as part of his ambition to

“give something back to the people of Cranleigh,”

all whilst trousering squillions from the sale of his former lettuce nursery to provide the people of Cranleigh with 265 homes and now he’s asking for more!! 

Screen Shot 2019-02-15 at 10.34.55.png



Have Councillors jeopordised saving Haslemere’s Georgian?



Owners of Haslemere’s Georgian Hotel have been left dismayed after their planning application was pulled from the Planning Committee at the last minute. Group Chief Executive Richard Angel told Haslemere Herald:

“Waverley officers publicly recommended the application for approval – the application was  withdrawn just 48 hours before the committee date. Nearly 12 months on from the initial submission, this delay is putting the future of the hotel and all 30 jobs at risk.”

It’s a controversial application to build 3 dwellings and change some of the rear hotel and spa into 16 flats, in order to revamp the tired hotel into a trendy boutique eatery and destination hotel, generating £2Million to secure its financial future. If this was Farnham or Godalming, it would be granted in a wink of an eye… but oh no, not in precious Haslemere!

The hotel is already in administration, and currently trading poorly in the hope of a refurbishment. Mr Angel continued“The hotel does not operate at full capacity. In January 2019, the occupancy rate dropped to just 9 per cent. At weekends, the figures are even worse.”

It seems Town and Waverley Councillors and the Haslemere Society in particular have been determined to try to prove the business was mismanaged and is perfectly viable as a 43 bedroom hotel, despite the applicant providing reports from Savills (1st March 2018) and Fleurets (15th August 2018). The Haslemere Society said: 

In a letter to Waverley last week the owners were dismayed at the meddling by local councillors:
we are shocked to hear that Members have raised the concerns they have given the clear and unambiguous evidence that has been provided.

The matters that you report as being raised by Members are without sound basis and clearly step outside the parameters of what is necessary and reasonable to request in the circumstances. Whilst we have taken the time to address them below, we must raise our significant concern that they have been raised both in the manner that they have and at this very late stage in the determination of the application.”

In particular the applicants highlighted in this letter The Haslemere Society’s Basil Fawlty pipe dreams:

  • In response to the question regarding the potential viability of the current 43-bed operation, we have submitted sufficient evidence to answer any such questions posed. This is the precise purpose of the Fleurets report and it answers the questions as to whether the current use is viable. As such, this request is considered to be preposterous and without merit and Members should be pointed to both the Fleurets report itself and the conclusions of the Councils’ independent audit of the report to ensure that they have properly recognised the detailed content of both reports.


Here we go, here we go, here we go Ooooh!


Screen Shot 2019-01-19 at 10.50.06



The fight to reduce the housing requirement for the whole of Waverley continues!  

So here goes another shedload of our council taxpayers’ money going down the proverbial legal eagle’s pan?

Out of the cupboard come all the Rollicking Rumpole’s wigs, as they measure their briefs by the metre in readiness for yet another High Court drama between the Campaign for The Preservation of Rural England,  Protect Our Waverley and ‘Your Waverley.’

Yesterday  CPRE/ POW were granted leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal against the judgment delivered in November concerning the housing requirement set in Waverley Borough Council’s Local Plan Part 1. That November judgement said that the housing requirement of 590 a year should be maintained, including 83 to cover Woking’s perceived “unmet need”.

So ‘YW’ may have to build 498 fewer homes and no doubt POW/CPRE hope that will rule out Phase 2 at Dunsfold, as it certainly won’t want to stop development on the countryside – will they?

The appeal centres on how a shortfall in housing provision – unmet need – in one borough is allocated to neighbouring boroughs. The clarification of this issue has implications not just for Waverley but for Guildford and across the country. The Right Honourable Lord Justice Singh said:

“I am persuaded by the Appellants skeleton arguments that there is a compelling reason why these two appeals should proceed, namely the general importance of the issues of principle raised.  It appears from those skeleton arguments that they have not been considered at the level of the Court of Appeal and it seems to me that they should be.”

This latest appeal comes against the background of two important changes. First, Woking Borough Council has declared that it now has no unmet need. Second, new demographic numbers recently released by the Office for National Statistics imply a much-reduced need for new housing.

Dunsfold resident Bob Lees said “This is great news! It provides Waverley Borough Council with a golden opportunity to significantly reduce the mandatory number of new houses to be built in the Borough over the next 14 years. POW fought against the housing requirement at the Examination of the Plan in the Council Chamber. POW fought again in the High Court. POW will fight in the Court of Appeal.

POW is fighting to protect our Waverley against unneeded development of our towns, of our villages and in our beautiful countryside.”

Well – if you believe that you will believe in fairies! Because this has nothing to do with protecting Waverley – it is all about preventing development on the largest brownfield site in the borough close to the home of Bob Lies, and his running-mate Little Britton who both spitting distance from  Dunsfold Park. A development which was .given the go-ahead by the High Court in November. POW is still smarting from this decision

Dunsfold Park is now preparing its Masterplan – which includes 1,800 homes. The First Phase of the total of 2,300 in the Waverley Local Plan.


Residents believe there is a whiff of brown envelopes wafting over Waverley.




Surely they all took a bung? “Oh no we didn’t.” Oh…


Local residents have been steaming and venting their spleens on Milford and Godalming Facebook groups over Waverley Councillors’ decision to grant planning for 200 houses on Milford Golf Course. After a three hour debate on Wednesday, the decision was made 10 for versus 5 against, with 3 abstentions.

Yes you heard it right – Three Councillors sat through THREE HOURS of debate and then still had the gall to abstain.*

How could they have done this? Gutless or what?
Why did they vote for this in the wake against such an avalanche of public outcry?

How did key local councillor Dennis Leigh keep Shtum after ranting vociferously against the development? What, we hear you cry? He abstained too?? This beggars belief! Had the Tory Whip – Councillor Michael Goodriddance been working overtime before the meeting?

No wonder local residents added 2 + 2 together and made 5, with many drawing the conclusion that Councillors were receiving big brown envelopes of cash. Surely there must be a reason for them to ignore the public so skilfully?!

As one resident after another came to the Bung Conclusion on Social Media, local top Tory Waverley and Surrey County Councillor Peter Martin  was forced to fire up his Facebook and defend his fellow councillors:

Screenshot 2019-02-21 at 20.38.17

Regrettably, we have to agree with him. The way Councillors approach these meetings is more cock-up than conspiracy and, although we make no excuses for them, are, as one said: “between a rock and a hard place.”  Otherwise, you would have to bung a lot of officers and councillors, and Statutory Agencies  – agencies that are completely overloaded with work, and half the time don’t even do their investigations properly. These things would certainly leak to our ears, wouldn’t they! We’d happily write an invoice too!

We heard one unguarded and frustrated SCC highway engineer say – SUDS – on developments (Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes) just don’t work! What an admission to make in public!

As one local resident pointed out – the damage was done as soon as the land was taken out of the Green Belt by Waverley’s Local Plan Part 1. The developer didn’t need to bung anybody after that – in fact, they might have got a £5Million CIL discount by getting it in before 1st March!

*We understand one councillor did arrive late so wasn’t permitted to vote as he hadn’t heard the full debate. He too spoke against. The Committee acts in a Quasi-Judicial style you see. Not that one particular Farnham Residents’ Councillor would agree. He regularly accuses Waverley of ignoring environmental law.  Which it appears, they can continue doing as long as Natural England and the Government says so. 

Last night Waverley Planners gave developers the go-ahead to build homes on Milford Golf Course.



Plus 3 Abstentions from the gutless ones.

We hate to say we told you so – but here’s yesterday’s post and here are the posts this little four-legged friend will soon be walking on!

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

 A TORY TRICK – proposed by The TT’s whip Cllr Michael Goodridge who can  be relied upon to pull a rabbit out of the hat when the going gets rough. Proposed ‘A Planning Condition’ to approve the outline scheme for  200 homes in the hope, on a wing and a prayer, that the developer will reduce it to 180 later!

We should have put money on it at Bet Fred, but the odds were not good – because ‘Your Waverley” put the site in the Local Plan Part 1 – not the Government Inspector but ‘YW’ –  he just approved it! And last night consent was granted in outline- with an informative to developer Stretton Milford – that it is unlikely to get more than 180 homes on the golf course when it seeks detailed permission later.

Once upon a time,  everyone at Waverley thought it was THE  perfect site close to a station, schools, the A3, Milford village and nearby Godalming. In fact, local parish councils, hundreds of residents and most councillors didn’t actually like the scheme on Green Belt, on the flood plain, and believed it may not be deliverable as it is covered by a Covenant restricting its use.

But once again Betty’s nifty boot scored from the sidelines. Oh my – we will miss her.

For nearly three hours councillors, including the ward member, slammed the scheme. Most claimed there was insufficient information,  far too many unknowns including pavement improvements and bridge widening that were promised. Improvements that may not be in the developers’ gift, without the co-operation of Milford Golf Course!

But there was full support from Cranleigh Cllr Mary Foryszewski who, for the second time in just under a month, told her colleagues how much Cranleigh, with no station and very poor infrastructure, had repeatedly suffered from overdevelopment, and it was time for the rest of the borough take its share. 

In other words, you stuffed us and now it’s our turn to stuff you?

She went native after Waverley’s head planning honcho threatened the council’s  Planning Committee that if they refused the scheme towns like Farnham and Cranleigh, without the protection of Green Belt would suffer. As Waverley,  now requires a 20% buffer – and would not have a 5-year land supply, as had been proved recently in two overturned appeals!  Cllr Liz Townsend supported the scheme but called for, and highway officers agreed, too, bigger crossing points for walkers, Station Road should be wider and only 2-storey properties should be built.

Tim House, speaking on behalf of objectors lambasted the scheme calling it an “affront to common sense which flew in the face of public opinion.” He warned the land was covered by a restrictive Covenant that could prevent it ever being developed.”

He accused officers of coming up with a “cocktail of conditions” that the more realistic members of the committee should object to.

Witley Parish Council’s spokesman Cllr Gillian McCalden said the golf course was not the right place for development, and their Neighbourhood Plan had included far better locations for housing it recognised was badly needed. She predicted severe traffic congestion in Station Road, and although all the statutory consultees who had originally objected -Thames Water, SCC, Highways; Natural England; Environment Agency,  had now done a volte-face, and changed their minds, saying they were “now satisfied” –

However, she  Said: “we are not satisfied.”

The Ward Councillor Bob Upton said he didn’t blame Waverley planning officers:

“You are just doing your job and in the passage of time, you  will have moved on to pastures new as have most of your  colleagues, leaving behind many very frustrated villagers.”

Cllr Paul Follows said from the outset he would object to the application on the grounds that it was overdevelopment on a Flood Plain, off a narrow busy road, where no proper paths were provided to the station – unless, according to officers,  this could be negotiated sometime in the future! The Local Plan, which he said he had not voted for,  had stipulated 180 homes, and therefore 200 should be refused. Claiming the developer should be punished for its greed! 

Almost every councillor agreed that The boardwalk – of an unspecified height- necessary for villagers to reach a SANG in Flood Plain 3 – was inappropriate.

Councillor Jerry Hyman argued the scheme should be refused on the grounds that it ticked all the boxes as an EIA development and under the law required a proper Environmental Impact Assessment. as the site was above the required threshold.  

But as usual, politics came into play, he was slapped down again… but nobody could shut him up from warning that a time bomb could be ticking for the future of the environment and everyone should be considering the consequences of their actions would have on the borough’s endangered species.

Others said, the pavements were not wide enough and the extra traffic generated by the Dunsfold Development, Aarons Hill and others would exacerbate the situation at Milford Crossroads which was already at capacity.

Councillors questioned the County Highways’ predicted traffic flows and the size of the HGV’s from Tuesley Farm which regularly uses the narrow country lane.

Councillor Nick Holder called the scheme  – “a non-starter” and when the River Ock floods at it did in 2013- no traffic would move along the road- and where the SANG – which was- ” neither Special nor Alternative; nor Natural nor Greenspace – by any stretch of the imagination. “This scheme is complete nonsense, I won’t be voting for it.”

So there you have it folks,  once again the TORY JPC has caved in as they have on most major developments at the expense of the community – predominantly out of fear of appeal or planning inspectorate intervention due to appeals lost.

Full marks to Witley Parish Council which despite its objection, has wrung out of a developer a dumper truck full of money towards a host of improvements for Milford’s roads, schools, and community facilities. Some of which was squeezed out of it in the last few days!  

Perhaps if the former Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council Mary Foryszewski had done the same – Cranleigh `New Town’ might not now be almost bereft of any improvements?

However, is that another Judicial Review we spy heading over Hascombe Hill? Because there are plenty of people out there in Milford with the will and the means to challenge this development. And based on some of the admissions made last night, there could be some very strong grounds to do so.



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


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

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

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

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


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

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

PerhapsWaverley Planners should all read this?  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/29/agency-protecting-english-environment-reaches-crisis-point

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 18.05.02.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Here’s what one of our followers thinks:

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

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

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

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

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

Words (nearly) fail me.

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 11.26.49.png

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

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 10.53.37.png

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 10.55.29.png 

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

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


Council tax going up and up!


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

White man once again speaks with forked tongue?

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.46.51.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-02 at 09.30.31.png

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


Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.47.25.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.48.18.png

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

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


Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 10.43.00.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

The application will be considered By Surrey County Council.


Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 10.43.10.png

190215 UKOG Dunsfold plans

Spanish nurses heading home?


Screen Shot 2018-03-05 at 16.54.34

A bitter pill we may have to swallow? 

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

How about that for a threat?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.53.54.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.56.08.png

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.56.46.png


Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 14.01.08.png

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 14.09.23.png

Another little missive.

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 14.02.11.png

Please, Sir – we want more?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

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

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

Surely that warranted yet another round of applause?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I may put to the leader the following questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 21.44.13.png

Cranleigh residents ask​: Why are we waiting?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 16.33.42.png

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

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

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

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





Send your troops into Wonersh Cllr Follows.


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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 11.01.54.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-08 at 09.45.10.png

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

Recycling Centres – v – Children’s Centres.


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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Screen Shot 2019-02-06 at 18.40.50.png

The once green, green grass of home.

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

You can read it here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Screen Shot 2019-02-06 at 18.39.55.png

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


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


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


Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 19.58.47

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

Screen Shot 2018-09-17 at 20.47.05.png

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-09-30 at 22.48.12

So there you have it, folks.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Who do Planning Committees plan for?



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

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

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

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

Who do Planning Committees plan for?

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 12.15.17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 We can’t get no satisfaction…


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

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

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

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

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

We will share one hilarious moment with you.

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

The moral of this tale.

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

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

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





Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 15.05.58

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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



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



Here’s a suggestion they can’t REFUSE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-30 at 22.05.38.png

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





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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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







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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear sir/madam

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 11.52.38.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 11.53.35.png

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 11.59.23.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 11.59.51.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-26 at 12.00.19.png

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-17 at 21.29.58.png

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


Its raining concrete – halleluiah? 

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

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

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

We bloody well told you so!

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-22 at 13.27.43

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

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

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

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

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

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

One told the WW…

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

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


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

Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 15.05.58.png




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


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

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



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


Here’s our Farnham Herald today.

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

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

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

Let’s all dump on poor old Witley?

Among the cuts proposed in its “transformation programme” to save £200m, the county council will close 37 children’s centres on Tuesday – including those in Waverley – and is withdrawing concessionary bus passes for disabled people and their companions before 9.30.am and after 11pm on weekdays. Next on the hit list could be local libraries. 

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




When will Waverley drop the shops at Blightwells?


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


Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 10.08.10.png

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-23 at 10.20.24.png

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

  Only 5,833

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

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

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

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





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


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

Council Tax Increase cartoon.jpg

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-22 at 13.27.43.png

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

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

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

Who, we wonder, is serving who?

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

Let’s all dump on poor old Witley?



Darling, can you programme the SatNav to the tip?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Where art thou now POW?


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

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

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

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

Protecting our Waverley!

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


Cranleigh is facing~: 

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

and that’s just your starter for TEN.

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

Apparently, one of our correspondents has the answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-18 at 16.53.55.png

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



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

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


Screen Shot 2019-01-19 at 10.50.06.png


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

Screen Shot 2019-01-09 at 10.15.31.png

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

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

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


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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-09 at 10.15.31

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-09 at 10.15.31

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

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

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

Don’t you bet on it?



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Screen Shot 2019-01-02 at 20.08.43.png

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


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

Oh!  And By-Pass Byham voted for it!

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-08 at 18.32.32.png


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


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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-17 at 10.18.25.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 16.33.42.png

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

Associated articles.

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

Now THE real Cranleigh Village Hospital wade s in.


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-10-07 at 21.23.43

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Screen Shot 2019-01-14 at 10.04.31.png

Fireman Sam attempts to get his constituents on side?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Stop Moaning Munro and do something​ about your patch.


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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-10 at 18.20.56.png

So PCC Munro – do you still want the job?


Guildford Train Murder – Farnham Man and Woman Charged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Screen Shot 2019-01-11 at 19.56.10

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


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

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

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


Read related articles by clicking on the links below.

So Waverley’s door shut after Bolton…Bolted?

Godawfulming – here we come?

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

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


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

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

It’s official!

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-11 at 09.25.25


Screen Shot 2019-01-11 at 09.27.38

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


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

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

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

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

A starter for TEN.

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

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

But we are now.

Godawfulming – here we come?

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


Godawfulming – here we come?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-10 at 09.54.33.png

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


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


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

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

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

A scheme opposed by Godalming Town Council.


Here’s what planning officers are recommending for APPROVAL: 

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.19.17

Here’s where they want it:

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.39.55

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.24.54

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


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

But support comes from six supporters including some local businesses.

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.26.27

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

Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.27.21

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

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


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

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

JHC – you couldn’t make it up.

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

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

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


Screen Shot 2019-01-07 at 16.23.31.png