Has Cranleigh Parish Council become embroiled in a little local difficulty with a village Community Board?




The Waverley Web understands that numerus complaints from Cranleigh residents are winging their way to ‘Your Waverley’s’ Monitoring Officer about a  recent spate of spats on the local chat board.  They concern Cranleigh Parish Councillor, Hannah Nicholson, who has been commenting, ill-advisedly, on the village chat-shop, AKA the Cranleigh Community Board. Not to be confused with the Cranleigh Community Group, run by Andy Webb.  

Nothing to do with the Waverley Web we stress.

 The heavily censored Cranleigh Community Board only allows comments on certain subjects and by certain individuals as long as said comments and subjects are approved by its Censor-in-Chief, Martin Bamford – otherwise known as the Chat Controller!

The Waverley Web has been banned by the Chat Controller because he doesn’t approve of our content or tone and certainly not the truth.  The Chat Controller has made it his business to, slowly and stealthily, take over most of Cranleigh, and is now doing his best to ensure all roads lead to Bamleigh.  The man now heads up the Bamleigh Chamber of Trade/Commerce, Bamleigh in Bloom; Smart Bamleigh; Informed Voice; Destination Bamleigh; Bamleigh Radio; Bamleigh Village Health Trust and is a Trustee of Bamleigh Knowle Park Initiative – and that’s just his starter for ten!

Rumour has it, in his spare time, he sweeps Bamleigh High Street, with a brush up his a**!

But, we digress!  Apparently, Parish Council Chairman, Liz Townsend, had to issue a warning to her fellow councillors, during a recent parish council meeting – no names, no pack drill.  

Ms Townsend reminded her colleagues that voicing their opinions on the Cranleigh  Community Board could be misconstrued as voicing the views of the parish council.  Councillor Townsend said she would like to make it absolutely clear and issue a word of warning to the operators of the Board that she had received a number of messages about the comments made thereon and these comments DO NOT reflect the views or opinions of Cranleigh Parish Council.

“As parish councillors”, she told her colleagues, “we sign up to a Code of Conduct. You are all representatives of this council and when you comment the public will view what you say, as a member of this council, and that is how you and we will be judged”.

Parish Councillor Ms Nicholson remained schtum, whilst the meeting was being watched by – yep – you guessed it, the Chat Controller. Perhaps he has his eye on Bamleigh Parish Council next?





Is there a new garden village named ‘ALDUN’ being planned in Waverley?


Is the little village of Alfold under siege by developers eager to join it to Dunsfold’s new garden village?


Will Alfold + Dunsfold – be renamed ALDUN and Dusted soon?

Developers are working in a pincer movement from the north the south, east and west of the two villages on the Surrey/Sussex in a bid to build more homes.

Now villagers are asking – with no development yet appearing at the new Government-backed garden village at Dunsfold – is Alfold destined to become Garden Village Phase 11.

Or ‘ALDUN’ – New Town?

Alfold_planningOnly the width of a 40ft wide B road separates Alfold village from Dunsfold Garden Village – with consent on the former Dunsfold Aerodrome site for 1,800 homes – and earmarked for a further 500+ in the Local Plan. 

Developers have been emboldened by a recent Government Inspector’s decision to allow an appeal by Catesby Strategic Land Ltd for a further 80 homes at the Cala Homes site where 55 homes are currently being built at Sweeters Copse off Loxwood Road.80 more homes on their way to Alfold as a Government Inspector hits ‘Your Waverley’ in its pocket too! The appeal site is located on the edge of Alfold, beyond the currently defined settlement boundary for the village and therefore, in open countryside.

However, the Government’s signal to developers appears to be  – if it doesn’t move  build on it?

Villagers have until Wednesday to comment on the consultation exercise by Thakeham Homes to build 99 homes on land at Springbok in Loxwood Rd. Fear not, you will have longer to comment on the planning application once lodged.  As we post there are no plans on the planning portal. http://thakehamalfold.com/?fbclid=IwAR1wuSjQoLY6t7nWIEJ6SGzABEjQtheDB_eG7wpjbmYvhTc4m6N0jwe1lic https://www.facebook.com/stopalfoldnewtown/

In the same Loxwood Road road – eight new homes are under construction in the Conservation area – adjacent to another construction site of residential units for young disabled adults consented by Surrey County Council, nearby. Alfold gets a new heart – and a safer village?

Developers are now converging on Alfold in their droves – with another 80 homes awaiting determination adjacent to the Esso Service Station with direct access from the A281 Horsham/Guildford Rd at Alfold Crossways. Alfold’s cross, are getting crosser – as the story unfolds on shedloads of new homes on their way to the little village.

In his shock decision on the extension to Sweeters Copse earlier this year, Inspector Michael Boniface also awarded costs against ‘Your Waverley.’ Despite Waverley, Planners claim that Alfold had more than adequately satisfied its share of the 125 homes proposed in Waverley’s Local Plan.

Adding insult to injury he decreed that Waverley did not have, as it had argued – a five-year land supply, and, had been unable to answer basic questions on its approach to calculating its supply. When given an opportunity in a round-table discussion to alter its approach Waverley continued to claim it had a deliverable 5-year supply only to change its position a day later that it could only demonstrate a four-year supply!  Its volte-face will now cost the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds.

The Inspector found the council to have acted unreasonably for wasting the applicants time and money, so awarded the developers’ costs against it.

Now for the second time in two years – following a 2018 public inquiry – dismissed by an Inspector villagers face yet another stab at development by Thakeham Homes on land, also in Loxwood Road formerly owned by Care Ashore – The Seamans’ Charity at Springbok. It wants to build 99 homes in a village with little or no infrastructure. No school – little or no public transport; a village and garage shop – and no GP practice. The village regularly floods with water and sewerage, has no gas, and poor water supply. A new access on Loxwood Road would be provided by demolishing an existing bungalow owned by – yes, you guessed – Thakeham Homes! NO PLANS HAVE YET BEEN LODGED.

It is believed the Seamans’charity may now have sold-out to ‘the – have another go brigade’ -Thakeham Homes. But this time for a smaller scheme – being dubbed – ‘the thin end of the wedge’ en-route to the future development of the huge Seamans’ Union land-holding at Springbok in the future.

If the new proposed sites are given planning approval its will result in the eastern part of  Waverley contributing to well over 50% of all the development proposed in the borough!

Public Inquiry decision on Care Ashore and Thakeham Homes’ boat sunk by a Government Inspector!

Appeal Decision 3237359 on Sweeters Copse

Here is the Sweeters Copse information.https://www.catesbyestates.co.uk/land/sweeters-reach,-off-loxwood-road-&-chilton-close-alfold?r=1

Cheers Jeremy


One of our local MPs enjoyed a pint at The Merry Harriers in Hambledon on Saturday, doing his bit to ease lockdown with some amber nectar.

Trust Jeremy not to go for a straight glass though!

Dunsfold Heroes and Zeros



Link to post on the decision earlier this week.UK Oil & Gas application in Dunsfold – Refused…for now?

Deputy Leader of Waverley Borough Council Paul Follows obviously doesn’t have a vain bone in his body – certainly not ignoring the rules on getting a haircut – only a  days to go eh! Paul?



Oh dear – share price drilling down…

Here they go again…we hear the CVHT trumpets blow again…?


Screen Shot 2020-07-01 at 22.27.17.png
Whether you like it or not Cranleigh people – you are going to get a damned great big Private Nursing Home on your land – run by HC-ONE – which has the dubious honour of boasting over 700 deaths in its care homes, including its staff,  from the COVID-19 pandemic. 
So a national care-home operator up-to-its-neck in debt gets to set up shop in the centre of your village so that the NHS/Surrey County Council can get 16 beds – free at the point of delivery to serve the people of – yes, you guessed – Surrey, and … Cranleigh if there are any left?

A couple of weeks ago CVHT chairman Dr Robin Fawkner-Corbett warned the parish council, which provided the land for the development after a land swap – 20 years ago that a new scheme was in the pipe-line and an appeal was being lodged.

Its former ‘parish partner’ has subsequently written to the charity seeking the return of the land as it had not adhered to an agreement between the parties that the land would be returned to the parish if a Hospital was not built within five years. This followed a mandate voted on by residents at a public meeting.


The Waverley Web wonders if the Charity will attempt the same ruse it used last time the scheme went to Waverley planners…? It almost got away with funding a dedicated planning officer, a colleague of one of the CVHT Trustees to assess the scheme. Of course, CVHT saw this as it mentions on its website as “unfortunate” as the officer had a good grasp of the scheme. Possibly a similar grasp as the Waverley solicitor – one Daniel Bainbridge son of yes, you guessed – one of the CVHT Trustees.

Is it any wonder the eastern villagers don’t trust this dodgy outfit, which is already being lambasted on the Cranleigh Community Boards. Apparently, its hospital spokesman and chief marketeer Martin Bamford (BB) has prompted his mates to call to kill-off the Waverley Web. We wonder why?

Screen Shot 2020-07-01 at 22.28.50

This clip taken from the CVHT Website! There are questions to be asked of Waverley Planners here?

Over 2,400 suspected cases at HC-One care homes

The leap in care home figures for England and Wales, follow Age UK’s warning to the government that deaths in care homes are “running wild”.

Sir David Behan, director of HC-One, Britain’s largest care home operator, has told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, coronavirus is already in two-thirds (232) of the group’s care homes.

HC-One operates around 330 homes. By Monday night (13 April) there had been 2,447 cases of either suspected or confirmed COVID-19 within its care homes.

The deaths included one staff member.

Come on Jeremy – now answer your Labour Party critics?


jeremy huntWill he – won’t he…? Please tell us all Jeremy why you talk one way and act another. Perhaps you could give it some thought?

Here’s a message we received from one of our followers.

Good Afternoon Waverley Web,

Below is an open letter that I have written, in my role as the spokesperson for the South West Surrey Constituency Labour Party. We would be obliged if you could publish this, please. Any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Dear Mr Hunt

I am dismayed and confused that you voted ‘No’ to routine testing for all NHS and Social Care staff last week.

You have been vocal in calling for mass testing of NHS workers and social carers. We have witnessed your persistence on this matter on social media, the print media and indeed on your many radio and tv appearances, including the comments you’ve made as Chair of the Health and Social Care Select Committee. It’s an area that you’ve articulated your views clearly.

I would, therefore, like to understand why you chose to vote ‘No’ to the motion committing the Government to the weekly testing of all NHS and social care staff on June 24th. In the debate, you said, “If we want test and trace to be effective here, we need to introduce mass testing, starting with health and care staff, and we must not delay.” You were congratulated on your stance by the Labour spokesperson. You then proceeded to vote against it, preferring a motion which vaguely gushes about the Government’s “tireless efforts” and fails to pledge any action for care staff at all.

Studying the debate I see that the Opposition offered to accept that general weekly testing would take time to achieve, but the Minister merely promised testing of NHS staff “where appropriate” and completely ignored the call for testing of social care staff which you had endorsed just moments before.

There are numerous care homes in this constituency, the staff and residents deserve the utmost support to ensure their safety. As a concerned member of our community, I ask: why did you fail to support these front line workers?

Yours sincerely


Tim Corry
The Labour Party Parliamentary Candidate
South West Surrey, 2019

We all wait with baited breath to hear if Mr Corry gets a response – but don’t hold your breath too long Mr Corry – because breath is so good for you!

UK Oil & Gas application in Dunsfold – Refused…for now?


What an amateur outfit Surrey County Council’s virtual remote planning meeting turned out to be yesterday – Monday – when councillors narrowly refused UK Oil & Gas PLC’s bid to appraise a well site on High Loxley Road near Dunsfold aerodrome.

The proposed site sits almost on the doorstep of Waverley’s highly acclaimed Government backed garden village – soon to boast circa 3,000 new homes. In fact it appeared that if approved the garden villagers – could literally have oil/gas wells in/under their back gardens.

Whilst we have provided the link at the bottom of the post to enable you to listen to the meeting – this comes with a health warning!

DON’T unless you have a strong stomach for a buffering, during an often incoherent webcast – and a decision-making process of a never-to-be-forgotten variety, which was at best amateur and at worst unconstitutional. Councillors at one point sought to dump the reasons for refusal onto the rapidly slumping shoulders of the very same planning officers who had recommended approval of the scheme.

 Cranleigh  and Ewhurst county councillor Andrew Povey put up a strong show giving over-riding reasons why UKOG should be sent packing; He had the backing of almost every town and parish council in the area – including ‘Your Waverley’ tucked under his belt.

  • SCC highways had erected signs in the road – ‘Unsuitable for HGV’s.’ So while its own professional highway engineers had deemed the road unsuitable, others proposed giving the green light to more HGV’s!

The road – by nature of he chevrons around its 90 degree bends was – according to county engineers – very dangerous.

  • The area was in an Area of Great Landscape Value – which by Surrey’s own definition was to be treated as AONB – An Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 

(The site nestles against a backcloth of the Hascombe Hills.)

  • County council officers had described the proposed works as posing a ‘seriously incongruous feature’ in the countryside.
  • Development would have a serious impact on the rural economy.

How, he asked, could a nearby wedding venue with a multi-million turnover running public  events which used flares operate at the same time as the proposed search for gas? The idea is ‘quite preposterous’ to site such an operation, strongly opposed by everyone locally including Waverley Council and the developers of the new Dunsfold Garden Village.

Although backed many of his colleagues, -Cllr Ernest Mallett the member for Molesey argued the council would be shirking its responsibilities if it refused officers’ advice – which included approval of highway engineers.

“If we make a decision here today that does not have some very solid reasons then we could be in for £200,000 worth of costs. We will be very vulnerable at appeal and in my 15 years of serving on this committee I have always considered it a golden rule that you cannot base a refusal on highway grounds that goes against highways’ advice.”

*SCC’s highways supported the application.

Cllr Mallett said: ‘It seems to be the view in this part of Surrey that you can use oil and gas, but not be subjected to any inconvenience! Weddings and events can take place here with upwards of 80 cars and lorries ferrying equipment to and from the venue – for which the council has given permission, without controls. But 10/20 lorry movements are a danger, despite traffic controls and enforceable conditions. Should this go to appeal the county council will be decimated.”

He warned his colleagues by refusing  what he described as “an insignificant operation” the committee would be in danger of dealing with it on a ‘special basis’ – or in a way that no other oil or gas application had been dealt with by the authority. It was not near other buildings, was 300 metres away from the Gipsy sites and the wedding events buildings. To believe that the wedding venue would disappear  was fanciful – when two huge areas had permission for ‘clear fell’ using large tree-moving vehicles on the same road?

‘How are you going to defend that when you go before an Inspector?” he asked? “We could be slaughtered at appeal.”

Stephen Cooksey (Dorking South & Holmwoods) said the threat of an appeal would not convince him to support refusal – which was in line with all the parish and local district councils. Why? he asked weren’t the gipsies consulted – when the impact on them and the new garden village would be critical.

It was then – after the application was refused by six votes to five – a muddled and confusing counting procedure followed – that the streaming of the meeting was halted – to give time for the actual grounds for refusal to be agreed upon.

This statement from UK Oil & Gas PLC (London AIM: UKOG) followed:

“We note that Surrey County Council (“SCC”) has today refused consent for the Company’s Loxley-1 appraisal project. The company is carefully considering its position but has concerns over the validity of the decision given the meeting’s conduct, the lack of specific reasons for refusal and reasons why the planning officer’s recommendation was overturned. It is likely that UKOG will appeal the decision via the planning inspectorate.

Stephen Sanderson, UKOG’s Chief Executive, commented:

” We are obviously disappointed by Surrey County Council’s refusal of planning consent for our Loxley-1 appraisal project. The refusal was by a narrow 6-5 decision and against the Planning Officer’s recommendation. Unfortunately, the precise reason or reasons for refusal and why the Planning Officer’s recommendation was overturned, remain unclear, which is less than ideal. The meeting’s general structure and conduct also opens up further questions on the validity of the decision. We also note that the Environment Agency granted the scheme a full environmental permit on 26 June covering all environmental aspects of the proposed scheme.

Furthermore, we note that the meeting’s main discussion centred around a possible highways issue regarding the suitability of the Dunsfold road adjoining the site to accommodate the envisaged traffic flows. However, the County Highways and Planning Officers supported this aspect of the application, stating that the traffic mitigation plan would permit safe use of the road during operations.


Screen Shot 2020-06-29 at 15.41.04.png

Screen Shot 2020-06-29 at 15.27.14.png


Here’s what Alfold villagers think. Strange though – the Hon Angela opposes and the Hon Jeremy stays schtum! 

Screen Shot 2020-06-29 at 13.35.11.png

View the webcast.

Top marks to our Waverley MP’s for their utter hypocrisy.


Screen Shot 2020-06-28 at 22.24.13.png

On Friday 331 Conservative MPs opposed a motion that would have led to weekly testing of NHS workers and care staff and guess who was among them… yep, you guessed – our MP’s Jeremy Hunt and Angela – ‘how high would you like me to jump Boris – Richardson.’

Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, alongside Dr Rosena Allin-Khan, Jon Ashworth and Liz Kendall had brought a motion to Parliament calling for greater protective measures to be rolled out in the health system.

But it was voted down by more than 300 MPs, including Jeremy Hunt who had called for a weekly testing himself on the same day.

So Jeremy and Angie its OK to join us all clapping for carers – but when it comes to voting – your careers are more important?

Screen Shot 2020-06-29 at 09.54.02.png

At the start of the pandemic, we were told MPs were to receive a huge boost to their expenses allowance when IPSA raised their monthly credit card limit to £10,000; allowed items to be claimed for without proof of purchase, and increased office budgets by £10,000. Since then, IPSA has also changed rules to allow MPs to claim for taxisWe can’t expect our representatives to catch the plague-ridden public transport like the rest of us voting fodder – can we?

Yesterday, a further boost was announced, in the form of a £312 annual homeworking bonus for MPs’ staff, to cover their home telephone usage, internet, electricity and gas – all tax-free. If every parliamentary staffer – none of whose incomes have been hit by Coronavirus – claimed the allowance, it would cost the taxpayer £1.1 million…

MPs will also be able to request up £18,270 extra for their staffing budget to deal with “a rise in workload for their offices as a result of coronavirus” – up from the £10,000 allowance rise announced at the start of the lockdown.

Responding to the neverending parliamentary pandemic pocket-lining, The Taxpayers’ Alliance Duncan Simpson told the Waverley Web:

“MPs and their staff should not be getting budget top-ups for working from home when everyone else is being expected to just get on with it.

“Millions have been stuck in the house, looking after kids and cracking on with their day jobs – where’s their £312 annual homeworking bonus? 

Parliamentary authorities need to get a grip and stop pampering our politicos.”  

We wonder, is this is the last excuse for picking the pockets of the public we’ll see from IPSA before the pandemic is out…

“MPs and their staff should not be getting budget top-ups for working from home when everyone else is being expected to just get on with it. Millions have been stuck in the house, looking after kids and cracking on with their day jobs – where’s their £312 annual homeworking bonus? Parliamentary authorities need to get a grip and stop pampering our politicians.” 

Before long Jeremy & Angie – you may need those hard hats. Because the public are getting angry – very angry!tinhats

Its official – Fly tipping across Surrey has reduced.


Tell the Truth

According to a Surrey County Council spokesman, the incidents of fly-tipping in the county have reduced.  So, perhaps everyone should go out with their cameras and phones and prove them wrong?

The Waverley Web has already found in one small area of the borough: One dismantled children’s pink playhouse; two single-bed mattresses; a burned-out caravan, a couple of crashed cars, and numerous other detritus bagged up and scattered around the borough of Waverley. But if Surrey County Council says fly-tipping has reduced then it must be right! 



Will The Cranleigh Society persuade the county council to go back to the blackboard and re-think its school strategy?


The Society which speaks up for the people of Cranleigh has been campaigning for months to persuade Surrey County Council to drop its plans for two new schools on a new site near Glebelands School.

Screen Shot 2020-02-18 at 15.41.19

The proposed new school is predicted to be too small to take the proposed intake. It cannot hold a full school assembly and lunches will have to be held in three sittings. Perhaps even more now the Coronavirus restrictions are in place?

The Parsonage Road green field site, adjacent to The Cranleigh Bowling Club and Cranleigh Sports & Social Club is a highly unpopular choice with local people and letters have poured into County Hall urging its as decision-makers to think again.
Cranleigh Parish Council was one of the first to oppose the school development, and several of its Waverley borough councillors also opposed the density of a proposed housing development on the two former school sites as ‘overdevelopment.’
Residents of the eastern villages led by the Cranleigh Society are urging education officials to go back to the drawing board, and consider refurbishing the existing schools on two sites – one in Church Lane and the other in nearby Parsonage Road. The Society has been campaigning for many months for a volte face by the county council, believing its combined bid to build new schools and housing in the same area will cause traffic chaos and a danger to children.
In addition to the huge increase in traffic expected in the area of the new development, in Parsonage Road the council is dependent on Waverley Planners agreeing to an application to build 91 homes on the vacated former school sites. Parking bays would be removed – causing further parking problems in an already highly congested area in the centre of Cranleigh.
Plans to ensure children walk to school has been rubbished by the residents of rural villages of Alfold, Dunsfold and beyond, where parents are forced to ferry children to Cranleigh as their primary schools were closed by Surrey. The rural villages in the east of the borough have little or no public transport. 
SCC recently held an on-line meeting with Cranleigh Society representatives, after responding to hundreds of comments, letters and emails objecting to its  plans for building the new Primary School.
The Society hopes that the strength of local opposition will ensure the scheme is fully reviewed in light of the county council’s recent Declaration of a Climate Emergency.
However, Waverley Planners could hold the key to the school’s development as the 91 new homes are required in part to pay for the multi-million pound school development.
Although the county council can give itself planning consent to build the schools, the housing development requires borough consent.
With water shortages experienced all over the Cranleigh area during the lock-down, residents are also wondering how much longer the water supply can stand up to the demands being put on it by even more housing.

Farnham’s Amy suffers shell shock.


Missing Tortoise prompts the WW to break its rule of never advertising missing pets.

Sad souls that we are here at the Waverley Web we gave in to the impassioned pleading of one of our team to advertise that Amy Thopson’s tortoise has gone AWOL.

He says Amy’s appeal to anyone who may have seen her pet in the Lower Bourne area of Farnham pulled at his heartstrings – because 30 years ago his hard-hearted  tortoise did a runner and was never seen again! He tells us deep down in his oversized boots he believes his own pet is still running around in the Godalming area – near Priorsfield School? We didn’t mention we saw a tortoise-shell broach that looked just like the picture he showed us!  However, he should never have called his treasured pet  ‘Nifty!’

But spare a thought for Louise – and ring her on the number below if you see a tortoise haring around in Lower Bourne.  Perhaps someone can tell us why tortoises appear to run faster than we all think?


Screen Shot 2020-06-24 at 12.32.28.png

It could be back to the drawing board for the Berkeley Bunnies on its Woolmead development?


Screen Shot 2020-06-23 at 19.09.19

Waverley planning officers together with Surrey County Council highwaymen may be willing to roll over for one of the nation’s largest house builders – but the people of Farnham will not!

Berkeley’s bid to slash car parking at its proposed  Woolmead development in Farnham Town Centre by 61 spaces from 141 to 80 was UNANIMOUSLY refused. It’s bid was dubbed as trying to drive a coach and horses through both Waverley and Surrey’s planning and transport policies to the town’s detriment. 

The Western Planning Committee of 15 councillors from Farnham and elsewhere were in no mood to roll over and ignore their local authorities accepted parking standards to enable the BB’s burrowing for an underground car park to be halved. A bid by the developer that would leave residents of the one-bedroom homes to racket around the town looking for free parking or using spaces provided by the BB’s in the town’s  public car parks – but only for a year.

In other words- Farnham is being dumped on – yet again! said Farnham Society Spokesman David Wylde who asked the council?

“If this proposal had been a part of the original 2018 application to redevelop Woolmead – would it have been approved? And, why was this developer being given another bit of the cherry?

He warned that other developers would be smacking their lips at the wriggle room now being offered by Waverley officers’ recommendation that the revised scheme  with no parking for 61 homes should be approved. WHY In a county with the highest car ownership would the two authorities hypothesise such a reduction when it had no basis in fact.

He painted a picture of – 61, or more cars prowling around the Town looking for parking, in the nearby hunting grounds of Farnham Hospital car park, in Stoke Hills above Woolmead or in nearby residential roads. “About the bus service – do we have one? – As for public transport generally that is one of last resort. As for the BB’s need to make the reduction to maximise its profits, he described this as a cheek and blackmail that should be resisted. 

Councillors pondered how many more concessions would be wrung out of Waverley before the supposedly ‘shovel-ready’ project’ was built-out? Why should the residents of a town where parking was at a premium suffer from the loss of spaces it could ill-afford?

Why, they asked were officers in conjunction with Surrey- ripping up their own parking standards provisions, just because of Berkley’s misjudged risk and supposedly ‘shaky finances’ as it would now only make a £10m profit and a 20% return on its investment?

Farnham Town Cllr ‘Scottie’ Fraser said officers were deluded if they thought it would end here.

‘Berkeley’s should be told to abide by their undertaking, pick up their shovels and get on with the job – because the people of Farnham will not look kindly on them if they don’t. If they are going to sulk and leave boarded-up site – then so be it- and it will be  a stain and an embarrassment on the Berkeley Homes Directors.’

Berkeley’s  divisional director David Gilchrist claimed the proposed reduction was in line with Waverley’s Climate Change initiative to become carbon neutral by 2030 and the reduction in spaces would have a positive impact on Farnham town centre’s traffic congestion and air quality issues. The shift post-COVID was away from car usage to public transport, walking and cycling. He forgot to mention that the revision to reduce parking was made in December 2018 (BC) before coronavirus!

Cllr Brian Adams claimed the application had nothing to do with Climate Change Initiatives and everything to do with increased developer profit. By halving the  basement and improving the profit by £1.4m! 

 Councillors agreed Farnham Town Centre was no place to ride a bike, and the picture Carole Cockburn painted of riding her bike to Waitrose with her shopping hanging off the handle-bars was of the never to be forgotten variety. She claimed the scheme’s revision was just ‘Plum wrong’ and went against The Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, its Design Statement and the Local Plan.

In this newly regenerated town – opposite the White Elephant which was described as such by Cllr Kika Mirylees, she asked where exactly were visitors to Farnham expected to park? 

Cllr John Neale said:

“Does the developer really want  to risk damaging its brand by building a blot on the landscape in Farnham? It is a big concern that the site could go undeveloped, however the people Farnham would prefer to take that risk. The longer it is delayed, the more it will cost

Cllr Dear congratulated Mr Gilchrist, of Berkeleys, for being able to keep a straight face during his presentation, ‘as I sincerely could not understand the construction costs, or the Independent Viability Report – and that is with 35 years experience in the business.’ He said the developer was trying to drive a coach and horses through both Waverley and Surrey’s established planning and transport policies to the detriment of our town.

Cllr Peter Clark said:  “The very fact that Waverley’s planning officers could support this gives me great cause for concern.”


Surrey residents, including some in Waverley, have experienced a spate of phone and doorstep bank frauds.



Police are warning Surrey residents, particularly the elderly, to beware of bogus phone calls and phoney doorstop “couriers” in bank frauds.

In most cases, unscrupulous villains target the over 60’s.

The Waverley Web has heard of several possible victims who managed to steer clear due to police warnings.

But Guildford has not fared so well where there have been 20 reported crimes, with crooks impersonating police or a bank official. 

The phone caller usually claims that someone has been arrested and an investigation is underway as their debit or credit card has been used.

The caller says they need the resident’s help by giving their PIN and card details over the phone or handed to a courier they will send. In four of the recent Surrey cases, a courier turned up.

Fortunately in only six of the 20 recent attempts were successful. However, the personal total loss of £58,705 is huge. The highest single loss is believed to be £22,000.

Older people are particularly vulnerable and the ideal target. All victims were over 60, most over 75 and the oldest 94. Sixteen victims were female, most living alone. In one unsuccessful case, the victim’s husband had passed away just two weeks before.

Police are offering support and advising about prevention because victims can be targeted frequently.

PC Bernadette Lawrie BEM, the Financial Abuse Safeguarding Officer for Surrey Police said: “This is a heartbreaking crime that preys on the most vulnerable in our communities and often targets a generation who believe in helping police and want to do the right thing.

“It can leave victims feeling embarrassed, low in confidence and blaming themselves, which they absolutely mustn’t. The only people to blame are the immoral perpetrators of this crime.

“Remember, no police officer, or bank staff on the phone, will ever ask for your bank details, PIN or for cash. Don’t give your details or cash to anyone in these circumstances. Hang up the phone straight away.”

Top tips to help stop this type of fraud are:

  • Act with care if you get an unsolicited phone call;
  • Never transfer funds into a new account on the instruction of an unexpected caller, even if they tell you the account is in your name;
  • Always check your phone line has properly disconnected before making another call. Call a good friend first, wait five minutes or use a different phone;
  • Never share your PIN code or enter your PIN into a telephone;
  • Never withdraw money and hand it to a “courier” or “police officer”; and
  • Never give your bank cards to anyone who comes to your door.

For further advice and information on preventing this type of fraud, see the Surrey Police website linked here: https://www.surrey.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/wsi/watch-schemes-initiatives/os/operation-signature/

The brilliant Farnham Herald wins coveted award.


Three Cheers from the Waverley Web for this huge achievement. However, perhaps it is time to dispel the myth that our tiny team, also based in Farnham, is in any way linked to this giant of progressive local journalism.

However, what a great pity that it has recently lost some of its treasured freelance journalists that have served the newspaper for many years. Including their stalwart Haslemere reporter – the much loved and highly respected Bea Philpott.

Screen Shot 2020-06-19 at 20.06.20


The newspaper of the year titles for 2019 was won by:

Daily Newspaper of the Year Above 400,000 Monthly Reach: The Yorkshire Post.

Daily Newspaper of the Year Below 400,000 Monthly Reach: Western Mail.

Paid for Weekly/Sunday Newspaper of the Year Above 50,000 Monthly Reach: Bucks Free Press.

Paid for Weekly/Sunday Newspaper of the Year Below 50,000 Monthly Reach: Farnham Herald. Sponsored by Camelot.

Free Weekly Newspaper of the Year: Islington Tribune.

Website of the Year award went to HullLive, Hull Daily Mail.

The Birmingham Mail was chosen as the joint winner for daily newspaper Campaign of the Year category for its focus on the Birmingham Pub Bombings. The judges also awarded top marks to the Power up the North campaign carried jointly by titles from publishers Newsquest, Reach and JPIMedia.

A full list of award winners can be found below and by visiting the event page where there is full coverage of all of the nominated entries in all categories.

In a video message of support, Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden MP paid tribute to all who worked in the regional press. He added: “Particularly local and regional press has a unique role to play both in holding local politicians to account and in building a sense of community.”

Minister Robert Jenrick’s promises to local authorities.


Will Government promises resemble Mary Berry’s pie crusts – easily broken? Or does ‘Your Waverley’ and Surrey County Council’s having nothing to fear for its future finances? 

Screen Shot 2020-06-19 at 10.04.43

Speaking at the Daily Press Conference in May Communities Minister Robert Jenrick congratulated his Government on the money handed to local councils.

 A journalist said although Birmingham City Council had already received £250m – like other councils across the country its services including car parks, children’s services and leisure centres had been badly impacted by the coronavirus epidemic.  He claimed if the Government didn’t match its words with actions, all these services would be compromised.

In response, Mr Jenrick said:

“let me be very clear to all council leaders across the country. We will stand behind them and ensure they will have the resources that they need to carry out the absolutely critical functions they are playing in the national response to the CV. That was the promise that I made to council leaders, as did the Prime Minister early in the life of the emergency.”

We have already provided 3.2 billion of additional resources to councils in just the last two months. We are providing a further £4billion of cash-flow precisely so that they should not have to face the difficult choice that you describe responding to the virus in their communities and for the very important public services – like refuse collection and services to vulnerable children in their communities.

In the West Midlands, local councils will receive £374m to deal with the pressures of the CV, and that comes on top of a very generous settlement at the beginning of the Financial Year which has already increased its spending power by over £300m.

If further resources are required to meet the CV related costs we have asked councils to bear, then obviously we will take that into consideration in the near future. I have been working closely with local council leaders and the Mayor of the West Midlands, who is doing a fantastic job in leading the community forward during this very difficult time.”

Patrick ~Journalist: The key issue here S of S is to make sure the extra support gets through to ALL the local authorities immediately. Take Shropshire as an example. It says that the money it has received does not cover the costs it has incurred and Shrewsbury TC has been saying that money is not filtering down to them and they are the closest to the communities that actually need the help!

Robert Jenrick: “Firstly, in terms of ensuring their residents get what they need. “We are absolutely committed to doing that. Councils are receiving more money, so far, than they reported to us that they need to meet the COVID related costs. They are also seeing a significant reduction in their income because nobody is using car parks and leisure centres. That is a separate issue that we are focusing on.

Of the  £1.6m that we gave we are making sure that a significant amount did flow down to the lower tier councils so that your average district council in England will now receive in the coming days a futher£1m or more in grants to help them with their expenditure and also to stabilise their finances.

We have also asked that parish councils should speak to their principal councils who have received that £1m if they need more funding so that the money flows down if they are under financial pressure. We have to get through this together.”

So, fear not all you councillors, from the top to the grass roots of local government – you can rely on the word of Robert Jenrick – and your council coffers will runneth over?

How ‘Your Waverley’ fared in the Coronavirus ratings.


Despite being one of the largest towns in Surrey – Woking has the lowest rate of COVID-19 infections in the county.

The number of cases in Woking 188. Rate of Infection 185.8

All the more significant as Woking has a large ethnic population, a group which has been badly affected by the virus around the rest of the country.

Why? We wonder. According to the local MP Jonathan Lord – Simples. The vast majority of his constituency had responded to the virus epidemic in an “exemplary fashion.”

However, what he didn’t say was how well the local nursing homes had responded in the early days of the infection when they refused to take in any residents from hospitals, ensuring they had the right PPE, closed to any visitors, and prepared isolation areas for any eventuality before the official lock-down began.

Mr Lord, who is a regular visitor to the town’s nursing homes, said he was extremely grateful to Woking’s residents and businesses, who had followed government, scientific and medical advice. He said the number of local infringements had been “vanishingly small,’

He was delighted that Woking has one of the lowest infection rates in the whole of Surrey, and I know we will do our best to keep it that way, even though we have now started the vital task of opening up our shops’ businesses and schools.”

Waverley did not fare quite so well. The number of cases 305. Rate of Infection 242.8

Farnham town centre 

There have been more than 300 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the borough of Waverley, which includes its largest towns of Farnham and Godalming. 

South West Surrey MP Jeremy Hunt said  “I think on the whole residents in Waverley have been very sensible and have followed and adapted to government guidelines which explain the relatively low infection rates in the borough.

“We’ve had a fantastic local response from the community and have also seen councils working together along with groups and volunteers to support those shielding or struggling. We are also very fortunate to have some amazing health and care professionals and brilliant neighbouring hospitals where the response has been first class.”

Guildford – number of cases 386. Rate of infection 261

Guildford High Street 

With just short of 400 confirmed cases of coronavirus, Guildford and its surrounding areas have the fourth-highest rate of infection across Surrey according to figures from the Health Service Journal (HSJ).

Guildford and Cranleigh MP Angela Richardson was contacted for comment but did not respond.  

A total of 96 patients have died within the Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust following a positive test for coronavirus, as of June 15.

Can you help Farncombe Wanderers to stay in the crease?


A message from Andrew Watkins

The impact of the current pandemic on charities has been well documented in the press. However, the lockdown has had a severe knock-on impact on local sports clubs.

The club I play with, Farncombe Wanderers (based at Broadwater Park in Farncombe) is a small club run by volunteers, relying on player subs and bar takings to keep the club going.

Without games this summer, there is no revenue coming into the cricket club. This affects not only the First XI that play every Saturday in the l’Anson League, but also the junior All Stars and our Girls and Ladies sections, the latter of which were set for their first foray into League cricket this year.

Club volunteers are working hard to keep the club going through these difficult times. Players have paid subs even though there is no cricket being played. However, we still face a significant revenue shortfall. As a result, we’ve set up a GoFundMe page to raise funds to keep the club afloat: http://gf.me/u/x8y48c.

Farncombe Wanderers is a fantastic family cricket club. Any donations will contribute towards ensuring we are able to continue once this is all over for players of all ages and abilities. If anyone is able to help, please consider making a donation at the link above.

Is ‘Your Waverley’ damned if they do – and damned if they don’t allow Berkeleys to cut car parking at The Woolmead.


Berkley Bunny chewing lettuce

Chomp, chomp – more lettuces on the menu for the Berkeley Bunnies?

The Berkeley Bunnies (BB’s) burrowing (or not) into the Woolmead site in East Street, Farnham  – have had a change of pocket about providing sufficient car parking spaces to serve the development.

Not satisfied with getting away with providing NO affordable housing in the East Street development, or off-site affordable housing either, the BB’s now want to drop 61 car of the promised 141 parking spaces in the basement car park. But has thrown a crumb of comfort our way by offering 30 12-month season tickets for council-owned car parks – thereby reducing parking for Farnham’s residents!

Why? OH, Why? We hear you cry?


Because the developer claimed the scheme was no longer viable – and that was long before the Coronavirus was even a little gleam in the eye of a Wahun bat, let alone toasted and roasted for a Chinamans’ lunch!

When consent was granted the BB’s were given considerable latitude by Waverley Planners in its provision of residential development.  If it had stuck to the rules, there should have been more larger units and some affordable homes. 

However, the BB’s  argued the location was more suitable for smaller homes – so dropped the provision of 20/30 per cent affordable homes, claiming it wasn’t viable. Why? Because it would only make £10.597m in profit – poor bunnies. Not enough profit = less lettuce!

So everyone rolled over – and some fell out – and there were ten in the bed and the officers’ said – roll over, roll over – you know how the song goes…

So you would have thought that having ridden roughshod over the planners once the BB’s insatiable appetite for lettuces might have been satisfiedl But Oh! No! Now they want to slash the parking provision by 50 per cent. Which doesn’t meat either Waverley’s of Surrey |County Council’s parking standards.

By 50 per cent we hear you cry – WHY?

FOR VIABILITY REASONS THAT’S WHY? And – that was before the downturn in the housing and retail market and the economic abyss we are heading for. So we ask the BB’s – what do you intend to ask Waverley Planners for next?


The planning application will be considered at a remote meeting of the Western Planning Committee on ZOOM on Tuesday, June 26 – and you won’t be surprised to hear that the officers are rolling over once again, aided and abetted by their highwaymen friends at Surrey by recommending approval.

Ah well! It’s an ill wind and all that.  At least it will prevent any of the one bed flat owners from owning a car; will help the BERKELEY bunnies get an extra helping of lettuce – and line the Pidgley pockets into the bargain.

As for Waverley’s planning experts. The Farnham Society comment in its objection letter says it all – 

If this condition to provide adequate parking in the original planning application is dumped the residents of Farnham will have no faith in Waverley’s Planning Department.

Post COVID-19 the Waverley Web cannot help wondering how many other developers will jump on the BB’s bandwagon that is now rolling across the borough to reduce their obligations under previous planning consents?


Councillor Nick Palmer gives an update on all things Waverley – but could the sting be in the tail?


nick palmer

Former Member of Parliament and member for Godalming Binscombe
Portfolio Holder for Operational and Enforcement Services

With restrictions easing this week, I thought it might be helpful to send an update.
As you’ll have seen, all shops are permitted to reopen from today Monday 15th, though it’s of course up to them whether they wish to. Because we have narrow pavements in Godalming and Farnham, queuing at a 2-metre distance would have been problematic, so the Farnham pavements have been extended and Godalming High Street has been pedestrianised. This is provisional and might not last indefinitely if the virus is effectively banished, but Godalming council is keen to see how it works.
WW. We understand that  Cranleigh High Street is now one-way. Up one way down the other.
Hairdressers and hotels are not yet allowed to reopen, and the 2-metre rule makes it almost impossible for most pubs: this may be relaxed to 1 metre, though expert opinion is divided about how safe that is. I anticipate that most restrictions will have gone by the autumn, but everyone is wary of a resurgence of the virus in the winter when the combination with normal flu outbreaks would be particularly difficult (and queuing for shops would be much more unpleasant in the dark or rain).

Like every other council in Britain, Waverley is facing a horrendous deficit, because income from car parks and leisure centres have disappeared.

Originally, it was thought that the Government would cover this (we were all told by Ministers “Spend what you need to, the Government will sort it out later”), but it now looks as though they will only reimburse councils for extra expenditure and not for lost income – even where the income has been lost by government order (e.g. closing leisure centres). The deficit for 2020-21 is expected to be at least £6 million, with a “balancing” payment from Government of £1.3 million.

This leaves a gap of over £4.5 million, and councils are not legally permitted to run up debts as the Government can. Nor can we raise council tax as that’s fixed for the year.

We will restart parking charges from July 1 as a first step to stopping the rot (in response to requests from shops we’re doing this two weeks later than the reopening tomorrow, so people can park free while they get used to going back to the centres). Like all councils we’re pressing the Government to reconsider – it’s not really in the interest of sensible government that every council in Britain should be insolvent.  If they refuse, I anticipate the need to raise car park charges further as it’s the only significant income lever that we have – but for now, let’s see how the return towards shopping normality goes.
A good solution for this area would be for the Government to allow councils to retain a significant part of local business rates – at present, we are required to collect them but to pass nearly all the revenue to the Government. That’s not a solution that would work everywhere since some councils have very few businesses in their area, but we have to focus on what will help here.
Meanwhile, we’ve watched the scenes of violence highlighted by the media around the country with dismay, and it’s important to stress that local solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement has been, like most of the protests, entirely peaceful (which, sadly, is why the media aren’t bothering to report it). I published on Facebook the statement from the Council executive, agreed with and read out by the new Mayor (Penny Marriott). We wanted to be constructive, local but not parochial, and not just passively express sympathy.
As community leaders, we oppose all racism, discrimination and hate and promote equality.
Waverley Borough Council stands alongside those who are appalled and saddened by the loss of George Floyd in Minneapolis, US. His shocking death highlights the injustices endured by black people on a daily basis in America and has also made us face up to the inequalities experienced by black communities here in the UK.
Now is the time to stand with the black community and all those who are racially oppressed – as we always strive to ensure our borough supports and treats everyone fairly, regardless of age, race, gender or sexual orientation.
We are reconfirming our commitment to address inequality and injustice in our own borough. We will consider and reflect on how we can do more to make a difference and will outline what steps we will take towards this shortly. But, in the meantime, let’s start this work today: let’s start by us all committing to actively seeing, listening and educating ourselves on the injustices faced by our black residents, officers and communities across the UK. Let’s be role models in empathy, kindness and standing up for what is right. Let’s use our position and privilege to make this borough a fairer, safer and more equal borough for everyone.
There was a bit of criticism of this from some posts, asking why we were thinking about this rather than local potholes, but most people felt it struck the right note – as I said, it’s possible for councillors to be concerned about both potholes and lives. We’re keen to make this more than just words, and suggestions for how we can contribute to making our country more inclusive for everyone are very welcome.

WW. Here’s the sting?

Finally, there are reports that Government, seemingly finding themselves short of things to do, plans to embark on local government reorganisation in the autumn, converting the current Surrey County Council and borough councils like Waverley into a new structure with one or more unitary authorities. I would have thought that waiting for Covid-19 and Brexit to pass would make sense, and we’ll have to see if they really devote Ministerial time to it!
Best wishes

How Gatwick Airport’s proposed expansion could affect Waverley.


Screen Shot 2020-06-08 at 10.19.06

Andy Smith, Surrey director of CPRE, the countryside charity, has looked at the implications of the Heathrow Airport Appeal Court ruling

In a landmark decision on February 27 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Government’s plan to expand Heathrow airport was ‘unlawful’.

The court concluded that ministers had acted in complete contradiction of the climate emergency and had failed to factor in the Paris Agreement on climate change. Building a third runway at Heathrow, judges ruled, would stop Britain meeting its internationally agreed climate targets.

This ruling means that the Government must reverse its policy on Heathrow Airport’s expansion.

But it also raises important questions about aviation generally, because it highlights the extent to which, BC – before COVID, expanding the aviation industry and increasing the numbers of flights over south-east England would make the climate situation even worse. We have now experienced how quieter skies have impacted on pollution levels.

However, will the Coronavirus have finally put paid to expansion at Heathrow, whilst increasing the likelihood of expansion at Gatwick? Or, will than Pandemic impact on Gatwick and the thousands of people who work there too?

The case against the Government was brought by Friends of the Earth (FoE), who successfully argued that the impact on the climate was not given due consideration – in line with legal requirements – when planning the expansion of the airport.

In particular, that the Secretary of State chose not to factor in the Paris Agreement, nor the full scale of climate impacts that aviation would create.

Heathrow –  BC was one of the UK’s single largest sources of carbon emissions. A third runway would have meant around 700 extra flights per day. It would have made the Government’s own targets of reducing carbon emissions and achieving net zero all but impossible to meet.

FoE’s legal team said after the court’s decision: “This is a great result for the environment, and an excellent example of how we can and should hold the Government to account on their damaging decisions.

“We’ve been opposed to expansion from the start, and it’s hard to overstate what a significant win this is.”

Commenting on the court ruling, Sarah Clayton, coordinator of AirportWatch, said the judgment has “clear implications for any large infrastructure project and will require government ministers to take seriously their obligations to cut carbon emissions, through their Paris commitments.

“The Appeal Court has shown that the Paris agreement has real teeth, and suggests that these targets must now be taken into account in all future big infrastructure projects, including plans for new roads, airport expansion and the building of power stations.”

So, where does this leave Gatwick, the major airport on Waverley’s and Surrey’s doorstep? Particularly AC- after COVID?

With airlines including British Airways pulling out of Gatwick and with 12,500 of its employees facing redundancy many of whom live in the Gatwick diamond area in the Surrey and Sussex what does the future hold?

As things stand, while the threat of Heathrow expansion appears to have knocked back, there are still plans for Gatwick Airport to expand by bringing its emergency runway into regular use, potentially making Gatwick a two-runway airport.

If this happens it would add nearly a million tonnes of extra carbon per day. An extra 90,000 flights and a further 28 million passengers could depart from Gatwick by 2038 if current proposals go ahead.

Gatwick argues this can all be done under ‘permitted development’ and without going through a full planning enquiry.

It’s clear that the implication of the Appeal Court ruling on Heathrow is that there should be no new runways at all.

If the Government is serious about tackling climate change and reaching the UK’s target of carbon zero by 2050, it should be prepared to block any airport expansion proposed for the south-east of England, including Gatwick.

CPRE encourages everyone to write to the Secretary of State for Transport objecting to any expansion of Gatwick Airport and pointing to the Appeal Court ruling on Heathrow.

The climate emergency, the importance of protecting biodiversity and the natural environment, and the threats to air quality and rural tranquillity from increased flights, are all compelling reasons to oppose the unnecessary and environment-wrecking expansion of Gatwick Airport.

Write to: Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport, Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 4DR.

Free parking for all in ‘Your Waverley’ comes to an end.


A message on future car parking arrangements from Waverley’s Deputy Leader – Paul Follows.
Paul Follows - Lib Dem Godalming
One of the things I think make a good councillor is the ability to stand up and take the questions on the subjects that people don’t like as well as the ones that they do. You elected me to be upfront with residents.
This is one of those times.
➡️ After 96 days of free parking, WBC will need to resume parking charges from July 1st. This is an endeavour to also try to give as much notice as we could.
Not all councils stopped enforcement of car parking charges during Covid, but we thought it was needed to help get through this crisis. Many more that did stop, resumed as far back as April.
I am monitoring this post and will do my best to respond to questions as they come up.
Ultimately, we wanted a clear month (alongside the Town Council measures) to support the restart of the high street from the original government date of June 1st before we brought them back.
However, this moved to the 15th of June. The borough must operate services (such as waste collection) and £100,000 per week of revenue loss is not sustainable (especially as we have been told not to expect any further Covid funding from the Government – even though what has been given to local government has not been anywhere near enough).
We also need to absorb the cost of ensuring that the Surrey NHS and Care Worker Permit scheme can be continued as long as is needed (this is a cost to the council).
I would also just say – considering all the financial pressures, if you have suggestions or think we could do something differently here please tell me how and I will do my best to respond.
We have kept the Chambers of Commerce in the loop at all times in this matter and we have essentially given 2 weeks of free parking to support the high street restart. This is the best we can realistically achieve in the financial climate.
➡️ Worth keeping in mind that WBC keep just 4p in the £ on business rates (the majority goes straight to Central Government). GTC get 0 from business rates.
Full Press release below.


The Waverley Web believes that the borough council has been more than fair with us all and we have heard from NHS workers how helpful they have found the measures.. However, as with all things – even hopefully, the Coronavirus emergency – all things come to an end.

So on behalf of our followers. Thank you Waverley Borough Council for (a) giving us the breathing space on car parking (b) keeping us informed every step of the way and (c) asking us for any suggestions we may have in the future. As for the miserable 4p in the £ you keep from business rates – ‘disgraceful.’

May we also suggest that when all the number crunchers get back to work in the Finance Department at Waverley – they tell us all – exactly how much money filtered down from the Government to the grass roots e.g. borough district and parish councils during the emergency. Because we have a full transcript of Housing  Minister Robert Jenrick’s press briefing when he pledged that No council would be out of pocket due to the pandemic?

As another campaign begins to stop a Cranleigh Private Care Home being built parish leaders call for the return of village land.


Apparently this little missive caused a bit of a to-do on the Cranleigh Community Board yesterday.

If anyone would like to take issue with the accuracy of the report of the Cranleigh Parish Council meeting perhaps they would like to contact us when we will be more than happy to correct any errors. contact@waverleyweb.com

Screen Shot 2020-05-24 at 21.00.49

Councillors agreed At an Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting this week to seek ways of abiding by a  mandate given by parishioners at a Public Meeting last September.

It was there that a large crowd called on the council to seek the return of land called ‘The Paddock Field’ exchanged in a land swap with Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust for a peppercorn £1. Claiming this parish was for the prime purpose of a new community hospital.

Although the council has refused the repeated request from the Trust to meet with its representatives to discuss its planning applications, on Monday Chairman Liz Townsend said once again the charity had asked to meet the Chairman to discuss only ‘community matters.’

Its latest ruse to single out the Chairman for talks failed, but Cllr Townsend asked her colleagues if they would agree for a meeting with recently appointed Trust representative Richard Everitt. However, she would only agree if the Clerk and vice-chairman, Nigel Sanctuary were included.

Recently yet another chapter opened on a 20-year-old saga by a charity to build a community hospital and day hospital, with public money, for local people. A decade later it morphed into an 80-bed Private Care Home, 20 community beds and a block of bedsits for anyone in the Surrey Heartlands Trust area. Villagers objected to their donated money being used for a private enterprise, and the planners threw the scheme out.

Now with a planning refusal tucked under its belt and with a change of name from Cranleigh Village HOSPITAL to Cranleigh Village HEALTH Trust it wants to reduce its original scheme by 20% and build a 64-bed Private Care Home, 16 community beds and a block of 1/2 bedroom flats.

Several councillors – including James Betts, Richard Cole and Marc Scully all expressed their disappointment that, once again,  the Charity, was attempting to pick off a couple of councillors in a bid to talk behind closed doors.

Cllr Townsend said she would not allow any discussion on forthcoming planning applications or appeals stressing that with their agreement, only the ‘community aspect of the scheme would be discussed. Full minutes would be taken, circulated and made available to the public.

Councillors commented that they had always been open and transparent in their dealings with the Trust, and although they would only support talks, within strict parameters they saw no reason why all councillors should not be involved, and any discussion held in public.

Said James Betts: “I find it very disappointing and I would like to  know why CVHT want a private meeting with just one councillor and the clerk. Mr Everitt is a new face and we will not all be there to question him – face to face, and will hear what went on second-hand. This is a very sensitive issue with our residents.”

It was agreed the meeting could take place – during which it was unanimously agreed that the Chairman would convey the subject of the residents mandate given to the parish council by a public vote at the September 2019 public meeting for the land to be returned to the parish.

She explained that in an exchange of legal letters for the land exchange it was agreed by both parties (CVHT & CPC) that should the development of the hospital and day hospital not go ahead within 5 years the land would be returned to the parish.

Screen Shot 2020-06-08 at 19.35.41

An extract from the Minutes shown at the Zoom meeting to councillors. 

Cllr Betts said it appeared from its recent presentation CVHT – A Cranleigh Charity has now unveiled its new development plans to village leaders… that the charity intended to go down the same road it had been following and intended to pursue another planning application. It appeared CVHT had no intention of adhering to the Covenant and although we may ask to have that conversation on the return of the land – it is quite clear it has other intentions and wants to develop that land. However, I would like the question asked:

“Are there any circumstances where CVHT would consider returning the land back to the parish council – and I would like to see a written response?”

It was agreed to discuss the matter again at the next Full Council Meeting – and after parish representatives had met with the charity the council would write to its lawyers and discharge its responsibilities by seeking the return of the land.

Nursing Home bonanza for Cranleigh?

In the meantime – The Cranleigh Village `Hospital Campaign Group’ issued this  press release to the Waverley Web.


Cranleigh Village Hospital Campaign Group

This group is run in conjunction with “Cranleigh Village Hospital We Want Answers” and is for the campaign to re-open the minor injury unit and to campaign against a private care home being built in Knowle Lane.

Nearly £1.8m was raised by the public in the belief it was to be used for the purpose of building a new fully functioning hospital including a minor injury clinic and the health centre.

Plans were granted for this but was left to lapse when the GP’s withdrew from the deal when the CVHT expected them to fund their part of the venture with their own money.

The hospital was going to be built on The Paddock Field which once belonged to the Parish Council.
The Parish Council at the time (2005) sold the the Paddock Field for the sum of £1 to the CVHT. A private landowner who was also a trustee of the charity donated a piece of land known as the Bruce McKenzie Field to the Parish Council but kept a ransom strip around it meaning there are not full access rights to the land.

The Paddock Field, now owned by the CVHT was last valued at £2.4m.

There was not a public consultation in regard to the land swap even though the Paddock Field belonged to the people of the Parish.

There was a covenant placed on the land that gave the Parish Council the right to take possession of the Paddock Field if the hospital or something that was beneficial to the community was not built within 5 years. For some reason, the Parish Council never acted upon this.

Up until 2019 the CVHT were still using the word “hospital” in the title of their charity, knowing full well that they were never going to build a new hospital.
We as a campaign group found this to be misleading as the public were still donating money thinking the hospital was still a possibility.

Although the CVHT accounts are readily available online, they have only just started to be a bit more forthcoming with what the money raised had been spent on.

The CVHT have always said that their aim was to bring back community beds to Cranleigh. As time went on and the money dwindled they changed from their original plan of a new hospital to a commercial venture with care home provider HC-ONE who are massively in debt.

There is only a 5 year deal regarding the funding from the NHS and Surrey County Council for the community beds. If this funding is not renewed there is a chance that the community beds could be rented out privately back to the care home.

The aim of The Cranleigh Village Hospital Campaign Group is simple, we want the private care home planning stopped, the Paddock Field land returned to the Parish and the remaining CVHT money given to the Cranleigh Village Hospital League Of Friends.

We would also like to see a minor injury clinic and some community beds for the local community reinstated in Cranleigh Village Hospital.

Thank you.
The Cranleigh Village Hospital Campaign Group Comm

Nursing Home bonanza for Cranleigh?


Screen Shot 2020-06-09 at 10.46.12

Will Cranleigh and the eastern villages soon be awash with nursing home beds?

At a time when older people are finding alternative ways of being cared for due to the massive death toll in Nursing Homes due to the Coronavirus – care operators in Cranleigh are seeking more beds.

Waverley Planners recently granted consent to the long-established Knowle Park Nursing Home- a medium- sized operator in the elderly nursing sector- The Caring Homes Healthcare Group.

Officers granted permission for 23 additional bedrooms and a new day lounge/orangery saying it would make an important contribution towards meeting the local need. 

The home is based in Knowle Lane in a large former manor house which was converted many years ago to provide accommodation for up to 46 elderly people (41 bedrooms including five double rooms) including those with physical needs and dementia.

There was some concern from nearby residents to the large increase in the size of the home – almost one third – mainly due to the extra traffic which would be generated into the site from Knowle Lane. However neighbours generally supported an increase in the home’s capacity.

More nursing homes beds on their way to Cranleigh?


** Soon Waverley Planners and Government Inspectors will be faced with yet more schemes in the same country lane for more care home beds. 

The newly named Cranleigh Village HEALTH Trust has warned village leaders it intends to lodge a planning application for 64 private care home beds and 16 community beds and a block of one and two-bedroom flats on nearby land, behind Wiskar Drive in Knowle Lane

In tandem -it also intends to Appeal to the Government against the refusal of Waverley Planners in 2019 to allow it to build 80-bed Care Home for HC-ONE together with 20 Community Beds.

However, when the Trust announced its intention to re-apply and appeal – it made no mention of the Care Home Operator. Has the Trust had second thoughts who it wants to get into bed with?

HC-ONE is Britain’s largest Care Home chain was recently threatened with closure of one of its homes for being ‘unsafe.’ In May more than 700 of its staff and residents had died after confirmed or suspected cases of the Coronavirus in ints 300 care homes.

The operator also raised the alarm last month of its ability to carry on carrying its huge debt burden.

*** Last night at an Extraordinary Parish Council Meeting village leaders agreed it would follow the mandate it received from the people of Cranleigh last September and seek the return of the parish land which formed part of a land swap with The Cranleigh Village Health Trust – which was originally intended for a new community hospital.

Post to follow…

A Cranleigh Charity has now unveiled its new development plans to village leaders…

Architectural historian Alec Clifton-Taylor OBE said of Castle Street. Farnham: “For sheer visual delight, this street has few equals in all England” What would he think of what SCC has done?


by David Howell – Chairman, Farnham Society planning committee

WITH the lockdown eased, it seems a good time to review what has happened since March, together with activity in the past week.

* Castle Street botch

I hinted previously at the issues involved with the replaced paving in Castle Street in May.

Did you have a chance to look? According to Surrey Highways, the works are ‘finished’ – but I believe many of the residents wouldn’t accept the standard of workmanship on the path down the side of their house. The footpath adjacent to Bill Restaurant is particularly appalling.

As you may have seen, work to the pavements has started on the south side of West Street.

* Housing developments

Work has resumed at Abbey View, Folly Heights and Little Acres housing sites. There appears to be limited activity at Brightwells. I contacted the developers or their PR companies looking for an update on their resumption of works?

Taylor Wimpey was the most helpful, providing a statement quickly. It was the first developer to stop construction and appeared to lead resumption of works on the Abbey View site. It said: “A new set of protocols for all sales offices and show homes has been developed alongside new safety measures which have been introduced to protect the health and safety of its customers and employees.”

No indication of the impact on programme and house availability was offered.

Work has also resumed on CALA’s Folly Heights site, but activity looks limited at the moment.

Activity on Bellway’s Little Acres site was intense but closely monitored.

Nothing from Crest Nicholson. Surely now is the time for Surrey to announce a Plan B for the retail sector of the development. Who needs more shops and restaurants now?

WW – A question on all our lips?

* National retailer closures

Carphone Warehouse in West Street ceased trading on April 3 as a result of the company’s decision to close its standalone stores.

The firm says the move is not related to the coronavirus outbreak but was because of the changing mobile phone market. It said the 40 per cent of staff affected by the closures are expected to take new roles in the business.

Johnson Shoes Company, the parent company of footwear retailers Johnsons Shoes and Bowleys Fine Shoes, filed for administration in the week of May 18, marking yet another casualty amid the coronavirus pandemic.

The Bowley shop in Farnham is in the listed building The Spinning Wheel, formerly the Goat’s Head Inn in The Borough. The building was restored by architect Harold Falkner under the patronage of Charles Borelli around 1910.

A Johnson Shoe spokesman said: “We have had a number of expressions of interest in the business but it remains for sale, and it’s imperative we find a buyer in the near future.”

Let’s hope the business survives.

* New arrivals

Diane Meyers opened for business as Ultimate Male Grooming (UMG) on Wednesday, March 11 and unfortunately had to close because of Covid-19 on Friday, March 20. As it ‘says on the tin’, they provide male grooming services but also have a coffee shop, which is currently open for takeaways. They intend to reopen the grooming part of the shop on Saturday, July 4.

Looking forward to things getting back to nearer normal, in the meantime stay safe. A further update next week. David Howell – Farnham Society.

This article first appeared in the amazing Farnham Herald.

Cranleigh Parish Councillor plays censor with the help of her friends – the ‘BB’s.’


We heard the mutter going on in the Cranleigh gutter from right over here in Farnham yesterday – it was so loud.

Quite a little brew-ha-ha broke out on the Cranleigh Community Board (not to be confused with the Cranleigh Community Group), which we can view – but the other one seemingly run by  Cranleigh Parish Councillor Hannah Nicholson, from which we are banned. Aided and abetted by the previous Editor/Controller Martin Bamford – better known in the village as ‘BB ‘Batty Bamford.’

Some of the locals have written to us on our private mail: contact@waverleyweb.com   about the Parish councillor shutting down legitimate debate on social media.

Apparently, a fairly innocuous Black Live Matter (BLM) posted by a young resident was taken down on Facebooks’ Cranleigh Community Board, administered by said councillor Nicholson. Further BLM posts were all also deleted, including one by a young black lady describing in detail what ten years in Cranleigh was like for her with ‘low-grade’ racism.
Posts by a few racist-lites welcoming the shutting down on any BLM posts were liked by Andrea Bamford, Martin Bamford and Hannah Nicholson.
No surprise there then? 
A further group was then set up called, ‘Cranleigh Allies’ as a response to this, which Hannah Nicholson joined and her responses to the whole thing was bizarre. A quick look on her personal wall revealed two public posts mocking and denigrating the BLM message. Ah! so she can say whatever she likes and isn’t banned – double standards or what? 
Members supporting BLM now have to have all their posts moderated.
One of Waverley Web’s followers said:
“I offered to pay for a racial awareness course for the moderators, including Hannah Nicholson who replied that she used to teach the course to which I replied that I found that hugely troubling.
Her response  ‘I shouldn’t be troubled as she isn’t a racist.’
I do have a copy of the entire conversation where I asked for her support as a PC on this issue if you would like to see it, I call her out very gently and she goes into a bizarre tirade then storms off.
 I would, of course, prefer to stay anonymous but any help in lifting the iron curtain of the Cranleigh Bloc would be much appreciated. 
Of course, this isn’t the first time the so-called ‘Moderators’ of the Cranleigh Community Board’s Censorship have been called into question. Youth Crime and hate crime is rising in Cranleigh New Town and the Eastern Villages.

For some considerable time, villagers were forced to put up with the constant drip, drip, of drivel that was dispensed by that self-promoting Cranleigh crank, Martin Bamford?  

Having set up the Cranleigh Community Board, BB, as he is known locally, threw his toys out of the pram and left the Board when people insisted on posting comments that he and his cronies in the Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce didn’t like or agree with.

Huge sighs of relief all round then!

Then up he pops like Punch and dived back in again, aided by his Judy. Because the rival Cranleigh Community Group, which was set up by Andy Webb to question and debate Bamford and his cronies’ self-interested take on Cranleigh, dared to launch a petition to stop a PRIVATE CARE HOME being built on a site that had formerly been promoted as a REPLACEMENT VILLAGE HOSPITAL.

Then, shock horror, the CCG dared to support bringing back to the eastern villages, a once treasured minor injuries unit, which could become an Urgent Care Centre.

In short, the Village has gone to war several times with Bamford and his cronies and he doesn’t like it.  He doesn’t like it one little bit.  In fact, he’s fizzing and foaming with fury.  He’ gets so cross when his opinions aren’t followed you can hear the elastic in his Y-fronts pinging!


So now when he isn’t putting his oar into the board he still believes he owns – he is busy self-promoting himself on yes, you guessed – the Cranleigh Village HEALTH Trust website! Really – will you stop at nothing BB? Or do you have to pay for services rendered?

As for the Cranleigh councillor – perhaps someone on the parish council should suggest she use her ample talents to represent the people who voted for her on village issues – and let Bamford have his Board back?

Bamford rides again?

The Bamford – Twit-ter

Here’s some of his drivel!

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 09.45.41.png

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 09.46.01.png

And you are in shock?!? How do you think the rest of us feel?

Screen Shot 2017-12-08 at 09.46.34.png

Anyone remember this one?

Screen Shot 2019-08-29 at 00.45.47.png

Screen Shot 2019-08-29 at 00.46.23.png






As officials count the cost of the wildfires on Thursley Common – some dumb arses light a fire in Godalming!


Thank you, everyone, (especially Richard and Nina) for reporting this early this morning.
I had reported it to the parks lead at WBC as soon as I heard and by 0832 I had a response and by 0840 it had been taped off while it’s cleaned up and the damage assessed and repaired. Remember this sort of thing costs public money too.
What it very much looks like is someone used public property to fuel a fire in a park. This comes a few days after the fire on Thursley common which has devasted a large portion.
As I councillor I have to try to keep some decorum in what I say and what I write – but some of the action we have seen in parks lately all over Waverley, from litter to dangerous to BBQs and now this…there are almost no words.
Thank you to all the residents (the vast majority) who continue to use the parks well.
*Photo 1 and 2 is of the issue here (and photo 3 is a reminder of the Thursley damage)
Cllr Paul Follows
Cllr Anne-Marie Rosoman
Ward members for Godalming Central and Ockford

Alfold’s cross, are getting crosser – as the story unfolds on shedloads of new homes on their way to the little village.



Here’s a missive from one of our Alfold Followers – who is spitting feathers – and can you blame her?

Dear Waverley Web,

‘As ever – these idiots seem to think they can get away with shoddy Desk-Based studies… if they cannot get the facts right with regards to their drainage system/SUDS etc or flow direction of waterways – then it beggars belief. Just for a change, Surrey County Council seems to have got its act together (probably due to working from home!) and the  Document below says it all… Well done Michael Burch!

Having read the developers awful Transport Assessment (all 200 Pages of it ) and what a waste of paper and ink – it was absolute unadulterated waffle.  You can tell any ‘STORY’ you want to with Statistics … The survey was carried out on 4th March 2020 which, although shortly before the COVID Lockdown, was undertaken when everyone was starting to get anxious and keeping close to home.  I know as I was visiting my Father at St. Peters and the roads were so much quieter even then.

The developer wanted to move the access to the development on the A281 further South – but that necessitated the removal of so much of the Native Hedgerows SCC  said it wasn’t viable so officers came back with these measures:


So Much safer now then!!!

Have any of your readers used the Alfold Petrol Filling Station at The Crossways? You take your life in your hands going in, and it is only a little easier coming out!

Would you believe that on the other side of the filling station – yet another access to yet another shedload of houses consented at the former Wyevale Garden Centre site? 

If you live in or around Alfold – or travel the A281 Horsham/Guildford Road read this. 

Horsham Road LLFA Letter June 2020

Anyone walking on Horsham Road and Alfold Crossways – will know it is a shockingly dangerous road with HGV’s and other traffic far exceeding the speed limit.  With Pavements that are totally unsuitable for young families especially children/dogs as it has limited visibility when trying to cross the A road between Horsham and Guildford in either direction

This developer simply shouldn’t even be wasting the Waverley Planning Officers’ time. It should be thrown out as over development in a small village, which has already met its housing quota and with extremely limited facilities, putting an ever-increasing burden on Cranleigh’s water, sewage, health and educational facilities.

“We have no schools here – Surrey County Council closed them here in Alfold and in nearby Dunsfold!”


Water water everywhere in February…


But not a drop to drink in May/June in parts of ‘Your Waverley!


Remember this in Cranleigh?

And this in Godalming?


Now there’s not a drop to drink unless of course its comes in a bottle in parts of the Waverley borough including Cranleigh, Haslemere. Other areas are suffering from either no water at all – including Winterfold in Cranleigh which has been without water off an on for weeks and other villages where the water pressure is low or non-existent.

So who steps in to bring Thames Water to heel?

‘Your Waverley’s Executive’ Committee.Screen Shot 2020-06-03 at 19.09.24.

Before Thames Water explains why it is running out of water – let’s just recap on the wettest February and heaviest rainfall since records began. Remember BC – Before COVID – when the poor souls in Pontypridd in South Wales, the inhabitants of the Lake District, and even homes in our borough wallowed in floodwater?
Now Thames Water is blaming Covid-19 for the shortfall, because we are all working from, home flushing our toilets, and making too many cups of tea!
With the recent warm weather, and since being able to meet at a safe distance in our gardens – our Waverley Web bubble mates tell us they are asking everyone to pee on their compost heaps because it helps the compost to rot down quicker. So no loo flushing there TW! So we are conserving water, OK? Would you like us to start peeing in our water butts too? If only we could go to the pub – we might even be able to fill the odd bath or two?
As for telling us not to water our precious plants TW! You have to be joking! Despite us saving all our rainwater in butts in February, and now having used it all – we are not going to let the poor little miserable flowers that arrived by post looking like we did when stricken with a touch of the virus – are we?
You really couldn’t make it up…
A water company asking us to cut back on consumption, or face no supply, or a hosepipe ban. But surely Thames Water, you can cast your mind back to when the wet stuff was cascading out of the sky, turning our farmland into a quagmire and our streets and gardens into rivers.

Haven’t you ever heard about – Saving for a rainy day?

P.S. Perhaps NOW instead of paying lip service to requests for comments on planning applications by our borough planners – and claiming with your usual monotonous regularity that you can readily meet the demand for water etc, you start ticking a different box?

You know the box that says –







The Big Dump Run has begun – but, not in the eastern villages.


 You can now take more things to the Surrey Community Recycling Centres – except Cranleigh!♻️

But not if you live in one of the eastern villages of Waverley  – including Cranleigh – does someone have it in for the residents over there?
Or – does Surrey County Council have yet another cunning plan to close the recycling centre down and continue sending unhappy dumpers all the way to Guildford or Ripley?

So come on Cllr Young aka ‘Queen Victoria’ and Andrew – our little Povey- and get it open or you could find yourselves out of a job next May!


Coronavirus – Community Recycling Centres update

Most of Surrey’s Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) have reopened to accept a wider range of items.

From Monday 1 June, more items will be accepted

Residents can take batteries, black bag waste, bulky waste, cardboard, gas bottles, green waste, hazardous waste, scrap metal, small electronics, white goods, and wood.

The CRCs are unable to accept chargeable waste (soil, rubble, plasterboard or tyres) and textiles at present.

Residents using a van, pick-up or trailer can use the sites again, but will still need a valid van permit, as usual. Hire vehicles must have vehicle hire documentation clearly displayed in the windscreen. No vans, pick-ups or trailers will be allowed access onto the Farnham CRC.

The number of people allowed on site at one time are limited and there are revised opening hours.

Residents should only use the CRCs if they absolutely need to, and must check for the latest information before they travel, as these arrangements are subject to change. Please see individual site information for further details.

Due to the fewer numbers of people who can safely be on site and the impact of potential queuing on surrounding roads, our smaller sites in Bagshot, Caterham, Cranleigh, Dorking and Warlingham will remain closed.

Visiting a Community Recycling Centre

Pedestrians cannot walk into any of the CRCs

The following measures will be in place at all CRCs:

  • Upon entering the site you will be directed to a lane to wait until a bay becomes available.EarlsW Lane
  • Once a bay becomes free you will be asked to reverse into a numbered bay.EWood Bay
  • There will be clearly marked walkways and only one person will be able to be on the gantries to access the containers at any time.
  • Once you have disposed your waste you will need to leave by the exit.

As a result of the social distancing measures, the number of people allowed on the site at any one time will be limited. It’s expected that only a quarter of cars will be able to pass through the sites, compared to the typical peak time visitor levels at this time of year. Therefore, queues are expected and people should only visit the CRC if it’s essential. We ask that you bear with us whilst operation of this restricted service gets underway.

Please treat site staff with respect and consideration during this challenging period.

Please see each individual community recycling centre (CRC) below for details of their addresses, opening hours and what you can and cannot take to them and any restrictions that apply.

Our community recycling centres

Alternatively, our community recycling centres are as follows:

All 15 Surrey County Council Community Recycling Centres (CRCs) and our three waste transfer stations are run by SUEZ Surrey (formerly known as SITA Surrey).

Please note: We do not tolerate any form of abuse directed towards our site staff. Any serious incidents or threatening behaviour will be reported to the police and may result in council services being withdrawn.



Has the Coronavirus come along just in time for the Council to provide Surrey with “Happy Streets?”


Or could there be trouble ahead for Farnham?

Will ‘Your Waverley’ be backing this cunning plan – after its former Tory administration’s huge success of promoting piles of rubble on the Woolmead site, and a looming financial disaster at Blightwells? What better place, and opportune  time than right now for Surrey County Council to use Farnham as a guinea pig?

Can we see MP Jeremy Hunt and his Tory mates’ sticky fingers all over this?

Screen Shot 2020-06-02 at 09.54.00

FARNHAM’S one-way system is to undergo its most comprehensive overhaul in decades next month – with a pioneering social-distancing pavement widening project set to coincide with a major gas upgrade in the town.

The government has given councils emergency measures during the coronavirus pandemic to temporarily create wider pavements and new cycle paths to ensure people can keep a two-metres apart. 

The county council is waiting to hear its share of a national £250m fund to support this.

 An inaugural meeting of the Farnham Project Board last Friday, was charged with finding a solution to Farnham’s chronic traffic and pollution woes, plans have already been unveiled for pavement widening in Farnham, Godalming and Reigate.

Godalming Town Council has already been granted permission to close the town centre to traffic – but details are yet to be confirmed for the Farnham scheme, which is complicated by the lack of a north/south relief road for displaced traffic.

WW’s Godalming Post :These boots were made for walking…

Surrey wants to close a lane of Downing Street and The Borough – with Farnham In Bloom volunteers potentially playing a role in using flower planters to separate pedestrians and cyclists from traffic.

Matt Furniss, cabinet member for highways, said:

“There are huge economic, social and environmental benefits to creating temporary wide pavements and cycle paths.

“These range from helping people feel able to support their local traders, to improving mental and physical health, and reducing congestion and air pollution.

“This is a fast-paced response to the coronavirus outbreak, but it links with our strategic aim of creating healthier, happier streets in Surrey.

“The pilot in Farnham will test how pavement widening will work, and we will change as necessary to deliver better streets for residents.”

It coincides with utility company SGN’s announcement that it will shortly start “safety-critical gas network upgrades” in Farnham town centre – set to take place over 21 weeks starting this week.

An SGN spokesman said: “Following close consultation with Surrey County Council, our contractor I&G will be carrying out safety-critical and essential gas mains upgrades between Brightwells Road and Firgrove Hill in eight phases.”

As illustrated to the right, phase one began in Firgrove Hill on Tuesday (May 26), requiring temporary traffic lights.

Subsequent phases will see work continue in Brightwells Road from June 8, and lane closures in South Street from June 22 to August 17.

The most significant of these, phase five, will see a lane closure at South Street’s junction with the A31 at Hickleys Corner.

For around four weeks from July 20, no traffic will be able to access the town from the A31 via South Street, with no left turn into Union Road from South Street and no access along Longbridge Road heading south towards the bridge.

Work will then continue between the bridge at Longbridge and Firgrove Hill up to its junction with Saxon Croft, and eventually Trafalgar Court from August 17 to mid-September.

And finally, phase eight will see works return to Brightwell Road for approximately four weeks from September 21, to carry out final connections and reinstatement.

An SGN spokesman continued: “Vehicle access to properties will be maintained and our team on the ground will let customers know in advance in the unlikely event this is not possible. Access to car parks will be maintained and pedestrian walkways will stay open.

“We’re continuing to liaise with the UK government and public health bodies to make sure we work safely and in line with expert advice during the Covid-19 outbreak.

“We have extra safety precautions in place to protect our colleagues and customers from catching or spreading the virus as we carry out this safety-critical project.”


Essential Outpatient Appointments to Restart at the Royal Surrey


Breaking News Waverley WebScreen Shot 2020-06-01 at 12.49.29

Don’t by apprehensive about visiting the hospital. If it was good enough for one of our WW followers- then its good enough for you.

He visited the RSCH recently and in a word said it was – “brilliant.” As clean as a new pin, hand sanitiser everywhere. Dedicated lanes to enter and exit, and when you reach a department your temperature is taken, you wash your hands thoroughly, with someone watching over you to ensure you do! Then, it’s business as usual.

One way systems, assigned entrances and adjusted waiting areas are all part of the preparations that Royal Surrey County Hospital Trust has put in place to keep patients and staff safe as on-site appointments are re-introduced from Monday, June 1.

Jacqui Tingle, director of Infection Prevention and Control, said: “Although the number of seriously ill patients with Covid-19 in the Trust continues to decline, we know that Covid-19 will be with us for some time yet.

“This means that we need to start to see and treat some outpatients face-to-face.

“Of course, where it is possible and appropriate to do so, we will continue to offer outpatient appointments via phone or video, but for some patients, we need to see them in person.

“We understand though that for many people the thought of coming into the hospital might make the, feel a little anxious, so here are some of the ways that we will keep patients and staff safe during their visit.

“We are reducing the number of patients who are seen face-to-face at the same time and we have adjusted waiting rooms and clinic rooms to maintain social distancing (if possible).

“We will also be introducing one-way systems in many areas, and reducing the number of patients using the main hospital entrance.

“Our drive-thru services for Pharmacy, Maternity, St. Luke’s and Cardiac Pacing will also continue to run.”

All patients who are invited for a face-to-face appointment will be asked to complete a screening questionnaire at 14 days and 24 hours before their outpatient appointment.

This will also be repeated on arrival at the hospital for their appointment. Other measures to ensure safety include:

  • Detailed instructions and a site map, with which entrance to use, included with appointment letters;
  • Clear signage for one-way systems around the hospital two-metre markers for social distancing;
  • Socially distanced waiting rooms;
  • The use of PPE by the clinician where social distancing is not possible;
  • Temperature checking for some specific clinics.

Mrs Tingle added: “Please remember that although many NHS services look a little different, we are here for you if you need us.

“If you feel unwell, it is important that you seek help. Remember, you can access a lot of advice and guidance online at www.nhs.uk, from freephone NHS 111, your pharmacy, or GP.”

New Schools for the eastern villages coming soon?


Screen Shot 2020-02-25 at 17.43.22.png

As you may know the property arm of Surrey County Council wants to relocate three schools into new buildings in Cranleigh.

The chosen site is behind existing homes on Cranleigh Common – and the new access for all the pedestrian traffic is between existing residential properties along an old, mainly disused footpath, opposite The Curry Inn on the High Street.

It is intended to provide around 540 places for primary school children and 68 nursery school places.

There is no parking provision, so presumably, the county wally’s are expecting motorists to stop in the high street to let their children out to walk across a common and reach the dark and dismal footpath alongside, we are told by the locals, a large white house owned by, wait for it, yes you guessed the Flying Dutchman. We collect stamps and money-off vouchers –  he collects property?

We have heard from villagers that they are predicting illegal parking and traffic chaos in the High St.

 We heard that the planning application for the school replacements was to be considered on January 14th, but the meeting, according to the SCC website was cancelled.  Does anyone over there know when it will be considered? Or, has it already been granted under officers delegated powers? Because if there are not enough letters of objection it will go through on a nod and a wink!

Here’s a post we made earlier.

Traffic chaos and danger for children in Cranleigh here it comes?
Please note this is an amended proposal so any comments made previously need to be resubmitted.
Please write, quoting the reference number SCC Ref 2018/0138 to:
Caroline Smith (case officer) MWCD@surreycc.gov.uk

Copies to: Andrew Povey (surrey county councillor)

Just as a matter of interest.

Screen Shot 2020-02-25 at 12.57.01.png

Screen Shot 2020-02-25 at 14.52.06.png

Screen Shot 2020-02-25 at 13.03.20.png

Here’s what the Cranleigh Society, the organisation that speaks up for the village says:

All our concerns for the future of Cranleigh Primary Schools continue

We are still beavering away as best we can –  and for all the letters and emails you sent to the various people we suggested – thank you!  We have received the Officers’ responses and are examining all minutely for gaps in logic and care.

 We feel under threat.

We believe Cranleigh is under threat from Surrey County council due to its apparent willingness to proceed to build a new school on its green fields. However, it does NEED  planning permission from Waverley Borough Council to build around 90 & 17 dwellings on the existing school sites in order to part-fund the new school and nursery.

They consulted with the right people?

Various meetings and online papers produced over the years – lead everyone to believe they’re actually was no choice.  To obtain a new school and nursery the community has to have all that new housing. SCC has done its figures – others have too, and just don’t agree. It is clear that a new school could have been built in the grounds of the old one when the two sites first joined together!

They are sure they can persuade nearly all the children to walk to school

By creating a very congested set of roads the future deems everyone will all walk and cycle – right? Little consideration then for those who have to deliver and collect from more that one school or nursery every day. Those who live further than 2 miles away – yes, those are all meant to walk like our grandparents did – and those who depend on Grandparents and carers who come from further away.  A greener future can’t be created this way…..

Traffic and Safety issues

We know that all Primary school suffer traffic issues, especially in September with new intakes!  This scheme however beggars belief!  Parsonage Road is where people have always parked, including the school buses. Now it is proposed to add more cars and vans of those living in the new housing – and the increased cycling – all accessed from a building tucked away behind established housing on Cranleigh Common. All of whose residents will be adversely impacted by the noise and any possible anti-social behaviour. 

We are trying

Cranleigh Society representatives and councillors have been asked to attend a meeting – online soon and hope to represent your views so do write in and let us know details of your feelings – especially if you can “consult” with future parents of the schools and nursery.

The Cranleigh Society.

P.S. Water

We are so sorry to see so many people are having terrible trouble with fresh water supply – we suspect things can only get worse with this long – but beautiful! – drought.  Let’s find ways to clean and water thoughtfully – in the meantime Thames Water really do need to step up and tell us what is happening.

Tummy Bugs

Several people have had inexplicable tummy bugs very recently – from 48 hours to 3 or 4 days.  Could be water connected?  keep in touch

Will Blightwells in Farnham enter the brave new retail world post COVID?


WE DIDN’T foresee the virus coming, although there is evidence the government had modelled a response to such a situation.

In anticipation of its eventual control, we should be reviewing options and considering our response to all the matters affecting our town.


One critical sector is retailing. Retailers are in trouble. I don’t know whether you have been keeping track, but numerous national companies have gone into administration, and it has been reported that almost a fifth of UK small businesses are at risk of collapsing within the next month as they struggle to secure emergency cash meant to support them through the coronavirus lockdown.

The hardest-hit sectors have been high-street businesses such as retailers and restaurants that rely on shoppers and nights out.

Carluccio’s was one of these and one of the restaurant chains to be included in the original proposals for Farnham’s Brightwells scheme.

They were reported as losing their battle against higher costs and increased competition in March 2018 but survived by closing down a third of their restaurants as part of a CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) rescue plan.

It was about then we discovered the name missing from Crest Nicholson’s list of ‘already signed up’ companies.

Other companies to have disappeared from the list include Byron Burgers and Wagamama.

Brands that have already disappeared from our high street include Carphone Warehouse in West Street and Laura Ashley in the Lion and Lamb Yard. Another retailer has also shut-up shop in Lion and Lamb Yard (WW)

Poundland has temporarily closed 100 of its 850 stores amid the coronavirus crisis, including the Farnham branch.

Monsoon Accessorize, located in West Street, is looking at a range of options, including a potential sale of part or all of the business, raising fears for the future of its shops.

Outside the town, Debenhams, the department store chain, went into administration on April 9 with the Guildford branch scheduled for closure in 2021. WW We now understand this store will not re-open. Middle-range fashion outlets like Dorothy Perkins, which might have come to Brightwells, are facing financial turmoil as a result of the lockdown, and brands like Cath Kidson, potentially a good fit, have gone into administration.

I have spent some time thinking about the proposals for the commercial element of the Brightwells development, and a couple of things struck me.

Firstly, Crest Nicholson should now accept loss of face and engage with the residents of Farnham, as they were asked to do at the society’s 2018 residents’ associations meeting. Their reply? “No.”

They should accept they need to incorporate some flexibility into the construction of the buildings with commercial uses.

A community asset to replace the Redgrave Theatre should be considered to increase the footfall when part of this site becomes unsustainable.

Another small observation – why aren’t there any public toilets, with disabled access, in the development?

The impact of the coronavirus will be with us for several years, if not a decade. Retail has to adapt.

* By David Howell, chairman of the Farnham Society planning committee

Almost all Waverley’s eggs are in the baskets of Haslemere and Farnham. However, Surrey County Council has splashed the cash all over the country. They have a Martini portfolio of properties – ‘any time – anywhere.’

Screen Shot 2020-02-19 at 23.29.52.png

These boots were made for walking…


Screen Shot 2020-05-29 at 10.01.58

And that’s what they’re gonna do – In Godalming’s High Street when the shops throw open their doors next week.

Here’s a message from  Godalming Councillor Paul Follows who has been accused on the Waverley Web by former Tory Borough Cllr Jim Edwards of …
“a spate of self promotion he needs to ensure that members of the Executive attend meetings and get on with the job on how best to serve our hard pressed ratepaying residents.”


And there we all were  thinking that Paul Follows is/was/and has been doing his damnedest, along with his colleagues to keep us all supported, informed and in touch – during these unprecedented times? However, Sunny Jim obviously has a different view.
Screen Shot 2020-05-28 at 21.56.10
This meeting has already taken place. However the link to the agenda and papers are here on this link: https://godalming-tc.gov.uk/…/0.-26-May-2020-PM-Agenda-Zoom…


Our Jeremy joins the ‘whack-the-Dom game’ whilst admitting he’s made mistakes.


This is the way to Barnard Castle…>>>


 Barnard Castle now Twinned with Specsavers?

Our SW Surrey MP gives the THREE lockdown rules Dominic Cummings broke.

The PM’s Special Advisor has been attacked by former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt in a letter to his constituents, which included us here at the Waverley Web!

In his letter to Waverley constituents, Mr Hunt laid out the three ways that Dominic Cummings broke lockdown rules.

As if we needed him to tell us that Big Dom had ignored the key health messages that he wrote and we were told to obey!

Mr Hunt said that he was wrong in coming back into work when he had been with his wife who was ill; he should have stayed at home instead of driving to Durham; and should not have visited Barnard Castle.

The letter read: “These were clearly mistakes – both in terms of the guidance which was crystal clear, and in terms of the signal it would potentially give out to others as someone who was at the centre of government.”

In a letter to the Waverley Web, Mr Hunt laid out the three ways that Dominic Cummings broke lockdown rules. He said that he was wrong in coming back into work when he had been with his wife who was ill; he should have stayed at home instead of driving to Durham; and should not have visited Barnard Castle. 
Silly old Jeremy, didn’t he realise that Big Dom was forced to drive to Barnard Castle, because that’s where the locals go for an eye test because it’s Twinned with Specsavers?

Mr Hunt, who ran against Boris Johnson for the Conservative Party leadership in 2019, and is still smarting from his failure, also told us, it was more important to hold the government to account on “whether we really are going to follow global best practice and introduce Korean/German track and trace so we kill off a second wave of the virus and get the economy back on its feet”.

But he said he would not join other Tory MP’s in calling for the senior aides resignation or sacking.

No of course, he wouldn’t. After all if Boris gets the bums rush, who wants to slip seamlessly into his shoes… yep you guessed! Our Jeremy! But be quick because judging by Big Dom’s obvious importance to the Government you may have a race on your hands.

Apparently BD  is so clever, infinitely more clever than most of the men in Government – so the pundits say. But if he’s that clever why didn’t he think up something more plausible than excusing his trip to the countryside rather than going to Specsavers? We suspect any 4-year-old could have come up with a better excuse than that.

Jeremy added: “As someone who has been at the centre of media storms with a young family, I know you do make mistakes in these situations.”

“I am also not convinced that politics gains much from the spectacle of scalp-hunting even though I recognise that accountability is central to our democracy and sometimes people do need to resign.”

You must have some serious marks in your a** Jeremy as you rock from side to side on that fence you so often sit on?

Here’s what his opponent at the last General Election told us.

Paul Follows - Lib Dem Godalming

Dear Editor, 

One rule for them, another for us.

This week has been dominated by the revelations about Dominic Cummings but for me it breaks down into two very clear statements. 

Did he break the rules? Yes. Has he been punished for that? No

I can really only apply my experience of the local context in Godalming and the wider Waverley where I am a councillor.

Large numbers of residents have emailed me (from all over the borough) over the course of this period asking ‘is it ok if…’ when it came to the lockdown rules.

Many did not exactly love the responses that sometimes, because of the guidelines –  I had to give. Most of the time I didn’t love having to give that guidance either – especially considering the sacrifice this sometimes meant for these residents. But that was the guidance and it was very clear (particularly if you had symptoms) and I know people understood that. I also have family within Surrey that I could not visit. 

I cannot praise those residents enough for following the guidance and in some cases under some pretty unpleasant circumstances. Some of them at least as serious as the issues allegedly faced by the PM’s senior advisor.

Our MP, Mr Hunt eventually took made a statement and again we can break that down into short statements. 

Did Mr Hunt think Mr Cummings broke the very clear rules? Yes. Should there be any consequences? No (and move along, nothing to see here)

We can only conclude from his comments that it is clearly one rule for them, and another for the rest of us down here on the ground.

Reminding us all that his overwhelming desire to one day get the big chair himself means that the only side he is on is not yours, or mine but his own.

Cllr Paul Follows, Deputy Leader, Waverley Borough Council

Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Candidate for South West Surrey (2019)


And here’s what the Hon Angie – MP for Guildford & Eastern Villages had to say, and is now Tweeting telling us all to … move on! Who is out of step with their constituents – Angie or Jezza?

Any friend of Boris is a friend of mine? 


Here’s the man to oust from Surrey County Council – if you want change?


A week is a long time in politics, but a year is not a long time pre-election.

Here’s the man Paul Follows, Waverley’s Deputy leader has to beat to take the Surrey County Council seat for Godalming South, Milford and Witley in the May 2020 elections. The Liberal Democrat who put up an amazing fight against MP Jeremy Hunt in the General Election has announced he will stand for Cllr Peter Martin’s  county seat.

That is of course, unless Cllr Martin decides to anoint another? As he is after all, Deputy Leader of the Conservative Association. He has also held the seat for almost a two-decades.

Screen Shot 2020-05-17 at 09.46.53

Over the coming months we will be revealing what voters would like to know about Mr Martin. Even some of the things that Mr Martin would prefer you didn’t know?

E.g. Has anyone in Bramley ever wondered how that monstrosity of a building which now towers over a listed building in the heart of Bramley’s Conservation Area was ever allowed?

The massive new Science Block that now dominates the centre of Bramley, has a very good friend in… yes – you guessed Cllr Peter Martin, a Governor of St Catherines. Another of Peter Martin’s colleagues Richard Seaborne is also a Governor there. The overdevelopment of the school site has been a bone of contention with residents for many years. For the past 20 years, the school has grown like Topsy and now dominates the village.

Screen Shot 2020-05-17 at 09.42.01

Mr Peter Martin

Party: Conservative

Political grouping: Conservatives

Division: Godalming South, Milford & Witley

Borough and District: Waverley


Any friend of Boris is a friend of mine?


Are we surprised that the MP for Guildford & the eastern villages is making excuses for Big Dom? Despite Accusations of Repeated Lockdown Breaches


Like Zoe Franklin The Lib Dem’s Parliamentary Spokesman  – The Waverley Web believes the MP and former Cranleigh parish councillor should reconsider her support, even if she does risk slowing down her climb up Westminister’s greasy pole? Because, she is undoubedly out of step with most of her constituents – and sticking up for Big Dom, could prove she has pinned her colours to the wrong mast! We cannot help wondering what her predecessor our former MP Anne Milton’s views might be on the subject? 

At least we all know now that the Hon Angie was  – ordered, advised, told, instructed, cajoaled, by the Whips Office into Tweeting her support for her colleague. Wise choice?  

The WW can certainly awards Boris Johnson 10/10 for choosing not to present the facts to the Nation, and refusing to answer any of the train crash of questions from the media. Just a shedload of evasion and waffle, which has led us, and almost everyone else we have spoken to suspecting that even Boris believes, truly believes, that what Big Dom did was wrong. Then another car crash Press Conference where Mr Big was treated as though he runs the country? Or perhaps, he does? So he could give, “with respect” his own interpretation of the rules. ‘Stay at HOME, Protect the NHS  Save lives.’ 

So now do you accept Angie that the message to us voting fodder that has been upholding the law to the letter, not visiting our grandchildren, elderly parents, or helping out our relatives, with children that had the virus, was just aimed at US and not YOU or your colleagues?    Might you change your tune/support now the FACTS are revealed?  Now we all know he drove 30 miles to Barnard Castle to test his eyesight and then drove to London and popped in for some petrol? Does he/you think we all just fell off the last banana boat!

Was it really worth tarnishing your own, very fragile reputation to support someone elses?

Because if the Police do their job properly, and are unhindered in the task ahead, and there is full disclosure of the FACTS, perhaps you, and others will be slighty more circumspect in future?  As a new ‘Girl on the Block’ it is often wise to pause – before obeying an insruction. So may be, you should look before you TWEET?

by Martin Giles of The Guildford Dragon

Guildford’s Conservative MP should “reconsider her support for Dominic Cummings and join the growing chorus of voices calling for him to go”, said Zoe Franklin, the Lib Dem Parliamentary spokesperson for Guildford.

But Angela Richardson MP responded: “It is disappointing to see that the Guildford Liberal Democrats are still quoting from factually inaccurate news reports.”

On Friday (May 22), the media revealed that Cummings, the Prime Minister’s chief adviser, allegedly broke the lockdown rules by driving 260 miles to County Durham with his wife, sick with coronavirus, to his elderly parents for help with childcare, provoking calls for his resignation.

Claims of further lockdown breaches by Mr Cummings are all over  today’s newspapers (May 24).

Ms Franklin said: “Understandably, this has angered and upset so many families and individuals who have diligently remained at home throughout the coronavirus outbreak to keep them and their families safe, and prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

“It is an illness which has resulted in thousands of people dying alone, families being unable to be with loved ones as they have died, or meant people have been unable to be there to look after seriously ill relatives.

“The lockdown rules about avoiding unnecessary travel and self-isolating were clear and designed to save lives, yet Dominic Cummings appears to have believed they didn’t apply to him. To my mind, it is clear that he should resign from his adviser position or be removed, as has happened for others in similar roles who ignored the rules.

“I was therefore surprised and disgusted to see Guildford’s MP Angela Richardson tweeting in support of him. 

”I find it inexcusable that, as far as our MP is concerned, there seems to be one rule for Dominic Cummings and another for the rest of us.

“Ms Richardson’s support is also surprising, given that in previous tweets she has made clear, repeatedly, that people should avoid unnecessary travel and stay home in order to save lives. Yet over the course of several tweets she is now attempting to justify behaviour which has potentially put lives at risk and has violated the clear lockdown rules which she herself had previously, and rightly, enthusiastically endorsed.

“Ms Richardson’s constituents deserve an explanation. Does she also think it’s acceptable for the rest of us to leave self-isolation and travel the length of the country to visit relatives if we’re infected with Covid-19? Or does she think the rules don’t apply to the Prime Minister’s chief adviser?

“I sincerely hope that, in addition to offering an explanation, Ms Richardson will reconsider her support for Dominic Cummings and join the growing chorus of voices calling for him to go.

Ms Richardson responded: “It is disappointing to see that the Guildford Liberal Democrats are still quoting from factually inaccurate news reports.

“Number 10, through the statement released yesterday and the press conference last night (Saturday), addressed questions from the media about the actions of Dominic Cummings.

“I endorse the comments of Dr Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer, that safeguarding of both children and those who are in the vulnerable shielding categories has always been a consideration in the guidance issued by the government.

“The care and wellbeing of young children is always of fundamental importance. There is great risk in making assumptions about an individual’s circumstances and access to support.

“My tweet speaks of my own personal family circumstances of illness with SARS in 2003 and therefore my perspective and understanding of the difficult decisions parents of young children face in trying to get the best support.

“That the spokesperson for the Guildford Liberal Democrats should use the word disgust in relation to my personal experience as a parent of a very ill baby, while very ill myself is unfortunate.


Twitter reports show the Conservative whips’ office has asked Tory MPs to support the prime minister’s position on the Cummings story.

A Cranleigh Charity has now unveiled its new development plans to village leaders…


…To its cry of  – “We are NOT DEVELOPERS!”


Screen Shot 2020-05-24 at 21.00.49

 Chairman Dr Robin Fawkner-Corbett rocked up to the monthly parish council meeting to acquaint village leaders with Cranleigh Village Health Trust’s (CVHT) latest cunning plan. It plans yet another development, in its war of attrition, to be submitted to Waverley Council by June 9. It will sit in tandem with an appeal lodged against a previous refusal for a larger scheme. However, he said he could not ‘yet’ share any documents with village leaders.  Power to the people of the eastern villages as they joined Waverley Planners to give a controversial Care Home development the order of the boot.

You try refusing that one with an appeal hanging over your heads Waverley Planners, particularly during a Coronavirus epidemic, when planning meetings are held virtually and there is no Joint Planning Committee!

Was that just what the Dr ordered?

Rumours have been rife for weeks that after being thwarted by Waverley Planners in BC – Life before Covid – the Charity was gearing up for yet another go at building on the former parish council playing field in Knowle Lane that it snaffled for £1 from villagers.

The Dr said a planning application was to be submitted for a 64-bed Care Home –   16 community beds – and an apartment block of 14 individual one and two-bedroom self-contained apartments. The scheme, amounting to a 20% reduction would run in tandem with an Appeal for an 80-bed Care Home, 20 community beds, and a 26- bed apartment block that was  REFUSED in December 2019. The Trust’s previous aspirations for a replacement hospital had been overtaken by changes in the health system and an increase in the elderly population, he claimed.

 Surprisingly, there was no mentioned of the recent planning consent for 25 extra beds granted to Caring Homes Healthcare Group’s Knowle Park Nursing Home 200 yards away in Knowle Lane just a few months ago?

Neither did he say if the Trust’s partner remains HC- One, reported nationally to be in dire straits! In its latest financial accounts, the national care home operator said: ” if the current worst predictions on occupancy and payroll costs proved correct there would be a “significant impact” on its profitability and cashflows and it would require bank support on deferring loan repayments.”
Adding: “The directors consider the specific downside scenario impact of Covid-19 on the group’s occupancy levels and cash flows to be so significant that it represents a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt on the group’s . . . ability to continue as a going concern.””

 Dr Fawkner-Corbett  said there had been “important changes to the Board of Trustees with the resignations of Nick Vrijland and Andy Leahy.’ “We are now delighted to welcome new Trustee Richard Everitt – who brings with him a wealth of business experience.” The Cranleigh resident was appointed on March 3 2020.

The mutter in the village gutter is that the developer duo, currently building  265 homes in Cranleigh – with other developments including at David Manns’ in the pipeline, resigned from the charity to pursue their business interests without charitable constraints!

Dr F-C hoped the new scheme would overcome previous objections of “over massing” as it would have a lesser impact on Wiskar Drive. Though reminded the council that the 2006 consented application (which the Trust allowed to lapse) was a larger building on three floors – larger than that refused in  2018. He said the Trust was obliged to lodge an appeal bearing in mind the large sums of public money raised. 

However as always, economical with the truth the Dr failed to mention that the original scheme was for a replacement hospital, health centre – and a day hospital and it was for that purpose that the money was raised.

Mr Everitt read Trustee John Bainbridge’s statement as he had been taken ill shortly before the meeting. This would dispel some urban myths about how much money had been fundraised and a ransom strip around the Beryl Harvey Memorial Field. This was an agreement between the parish council of which he (JB) was then a member, and the landowner  (Nick Vrijland), which he claimed, was a “win, win for the community.” A transaction completed in 2010 and which had nothing to do with the Trust.

There had been no fundraising since 2006, though the Trust had continued to accept donations.  However, the £2m figure quoted on social media was a myth. The Trust had raised only £950,000, far too little to build a replacement hospital. £630,000 of which had been spent on planning applications and professional advice.  Included were significant items of expenditure including the ‘Keep Beds Open’ campaign, the levelling and laying of the new football pitch (£90,000) and the improved access and new footpath works in Knowle Lane (£98,000). He said the Trust had been advised by its professional team that the reasons for the 2018 refusal were – ‘Not sustainable,” which is why it would be lodging an appeal.

These works in Knowle Lane were part of a condition of the consent for the Knowle Country Park, part of the Vrijland and Leahy developments in the park, and the (KPI) development at West Cranleigh Nurseries in Alfold Road.

However, there was no mention of the £500,000 paid out in salaries – or fundraising generated in the Cranleigh Village Hospital Shop which continued until its closure in 2018.

Dr Corbett hoped the parish would look at the latest scheme in a new light, with an open mind and consider the significant benefits for the community. There would be no physical Public Exhibition of the plans due to the Coronavirus epidemic.   It would be conducted “virtually” on its website. However, the Trust would be happy to answer any questions, if they were received in writing.

Parish councillors looked like rabbits caught in a set of headlights during the presentation.  One said afterwards she was “dumbfounded” believing the Trust was coming back with something that the parish council – a former partner of CVHT who had made the land deal for a hospital possible – on the community’s behalf,  could at last work on together to achieve something everyone would back.

Chairman Liz Townsend said her first response was “disappointment.” at the Trust’s announcement of its appeal against the original scheme. She had hoped the charity would work more closely with the parish council, which is the community, and which had many concerns and objections in the past and had hoped for a real “community project” that everyone could help to shape and get behind. She recognises, there was strong feeling on both sides. In response to Dr Corbett’s argument that the parish council had refused in the past to sit down with the Trust, Cllr Townsend refuted this saying council rules did not permit it to sit down with ANY developers – regardless of who they were.  

“We have to meet in public and deliberate in public, we cannot and will not meet developers behind closed doors in private to discuss applications.”

Dr Corbett said:

“This Charity has been labelled by some as developers, we have never seen ourselves as such.”

There will be a public consultation on the Charity’s website in two weeks.

Zoom in on Cranleigh Village Health Trust’s latest cunning plan?

Background of the 20-year Saga, which has proved to be a toxic chapter in Cranleigh’s history.

• First it was a replacement for the old Cottage Hospital, closed down by local health chiefs. A building with 14 beds, a Day Hospital Physiotherapy Unit and `Outpatients department.  This hospital still operates now with improved services including an X-ray department and Midwifery Hub.
• Then it was a replacement Cottage Hospital and a new GP surgery – with ambulatory services – a Day Hospital, outpatients and with minor injuries.
• It then morphed into an 80-bed nursing home, with 20 community beds for ‘local people’
• Then it mushroomed into an even larger ‘Care Home ‘ – with 20 community beds and a bolted on a block of apartments for local health workers.

Then … wait for it … wait for it… 

• They wanted a Care Home, with 80-beds for HC-One; 20 community beds AND an apartment block with 28 bedsits for health-workers from anywhere in the Primary Care Trust, or is that now Surrey Heartlands area!

And so the Great Cranleigh Hospital/Care Saga goes on… and on…Ad nauseamwww.cranleighospital.org


Has Godalming managed to do something Farnham has been trying to do for donkeys years?


Paul Follows - Lib Dem Godalming

The Waverley Web bets Paul Follows wishes he could be sporting this well-trimmed barnet now?

Paul Follows – Leader of Godalming Town Council Writes.
Screen Shot 2020-05-24 at 12.42.57

Judging from the comments which are growing as we publish – looks like this is could be a goer?

Allegation of serious historic sexual assault in a Cranleigh Baptist Church lavatory on Christmas Eve.


Cast your mind back 9 years, were you at a Christmas Eve function at the Cranleigh Baptist Church opposite Cranleigh Common in the High Street?

It was HM The Queen’s  – Diamond Jubilee Year.

Other memorable events that might help jog your memory, because someone must have been badly affected by the incident to come forward after such a long time?

Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 19.05.51


Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 18.58.46

How to shut people up Surrey County Council style.


The Waverley Web used a piece of masking tape to keep Waverley Councillor and Green Campaigner Steve Williams shtum.

But the clever wallers at the county council had their own means of ensuring Waverley’s Portfolio Holder for Environment & Sustainability was silenced. Well, that was before UK Oil & Gas’s planning application to drill in Dunsfold was postponed until the end of June!

Cllr Williams, Chairman of Waverley’s Green Party and the architect behind the council’s  Climate Emergency Declaration was refused the right to speak to the virtual committee on Thursday.
Surrey County Council told him he did not qualify as a speaker because he submitted an objection on behalf of Waverley Borough Council on council headed paper. Only individuals were permitted to participate in the meeting, he was told.


Now the county council will have to find another reason to gag Waverley’s first Green Councillor, an educationalist, green socialist and political activist, and editor of The Compass. No doubt he will ensure next time he makes his objection at the hearing on June 29, it won’t be on Waverley’s headed paper!

No determination should be made until site visit restrictions are lifted. Seeing the area, on the ground, is an essential part of any decision-making process – let alone on such a controversial planning application.


Zooming in on Farnham Town Council.


Was Farnham Residents’  Farnham Town Councillor John Ward all at sea at its recent ZOOM meeting?

Screen Shot 2020-05-14 at 21.16.47

 Farnham councillor and Waverley’s leader told the ‘virtual’ town council meeting he should have been in Barbados. Saying he was prevented from going on his planned trip by “the disease.”

However, he failed to vote on the important issue of the night – when his colleagues proposed and unanimously agreed to six important principals the Farnham Town Council wanted the new Farnham Project Board to take on board. As well as some minor amendments to its Terms of Reference.
But what’s this bloke’s game? Despite a working group being formed that night – John Ward sends his full-on plan to Tim Oliver(SCC), Hunt, Kemp and co within hours of the council meeting!

Let us all hope that the politicisation of this important topic stops so that perhaps this vehicle can make some progress in achieving something for our residents here in FarnhamfFor the first time in 20yrs!

The Liberal Democrats, Farnham Residents, Green and Labour groups have all managed to put past differences aside to work together for Waverley’s residents. Surely Jeremy’s Tories wouldn’t want to be the odd ones out on this? Perhaps a little less game-playing and a bit more working constructively is called for?

For the uninitiated, it is the opinion of many of the town’s residents that the Project Board has been formed to kick the can down the road so it can see Surrey County Council’s deliberate foolish gridlock of the town come to fruition. Together the Hon Jeremy Hunt and SCC are desperate to cover up the roles they have played in supporting and perpetuating  developer Crest Nicholson’s 2007/8 Transport Assessment fraud ~ (The Royal Deer charade.) The Board has now been formed to signal  £250m of  ‘road improvements.’ And the Town Council is suporting SCC’s bid for electric buses.

‘Improvements’ that will signal further major development including The AQAP, Waverley’s Local Plan, The Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, Blightwells, Woolmead and all the impending major developments coming Farnham’s way – e.g. 320 dwellings proposed at Coxbridge Farm – all reliant on major road changes.

Many believe  – The Farnham Project Board is just a political distraction. Farnham, Waverley and SCC Cllr Andy MacLeod (AMcL) is peeved that the Board has chosen county Cllr Wyatt Ramsdale (WR), to represent Waverley despite him being thrown out at last May’s borough elections! WW wonders why Cllr MacLeod is bothered? Isn’t the entire charade an insult to Farnham? However, we live in hope, even if we die in despair.
Here’s the make-up of The Board:
Cllr Tim Oliver Leader Surrey County Council Chair; Cllr Colin Kemp Deputy Leader Surrey County Council; Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP MP for South West Surrey; Cllr John Ward Leader Waverley Borough Council; Cllr Paul Follows Deputy Leader for Waverley Borough Council; Cllr John Neale Leader Farnham Town Council
Cllr Wyatt Ramsdale SCC Farnham South; Supported by Katie Stewart SCC Executive Director – Environment, Transport and Infrastructure; Tom Horwood Chief Executive – Waverley Borough Council; Chris Tunstall SCC Infrastructure Planning and Major Projects; Iain Lynch Farnham Town Clerk; Tamara Stone SCC Leadership Office Secretariat.  
Some believe this Board is an insult to the people of Farnham – as only Colin Kemp has the skills required. 
They ask, does John Ward or Wyatt Ramsdale have any engineering knowledge?  However, they will boost the ego’s around the table of which there are plenty around this particular table.
The WW doesn’t believe Cllr Paul Follows has much knowledge of Farnham’s traffic problems or its roads. ~ In fact, as far as we are aware he doesn’t drive a car! But no doubt our Jeremy didn’t dare exclude him, after refusing to meet the new Administration’s chiefs most of the year, making it obvious to all that he really didn’t want to work with them!
Some in Farnham hold the view that most of the Board members couldn’t change a light bulb, let alone have any bright ideas for solving the town’s problems. But we reserve judgement until the Fat Lady sings.
If the Farnham Project Board, which meets this week for the first time, had any intention of producing a solution, it wouldn’t be excluding local expertise – like highly qualified retired traffic engineers – Mike Langdon and Robert Mansfield, both of whom actually live in Farnham and know the town inside and out.
But as, Farnham Cllr Carol Cockburn so succinctly put it at the Town Council’s meeting last week.

“I am absolutely horrified that Waverley and the county council are getting together to decide what THEY are going to do in Farnham! Surrey (CC) is not a planning authority, it deals with cars and roads. We have worked for years on the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan WE know what Farnham’s problems are. I do hope consultants aren’t being paid large amounts of money? This is the wrong vehicle that will come up with the wrong decisions – and we will not be able to influence anything until it is too far on.”

Annexe 1 to Appendix D of the Agenda Papers for Thursday’s (14th May) Farnham Town Council Zoom meeting is the Project Board Terms of Reference (attached, at the link below, pp6-9) 
The Appendix is at

ZOOM in on the UK Oil and Gas debate tomorrow at Surrey County Council? Oh! No you can’t!




Here’s the link below. So Zoom in and watch democracy at work?

And… you still have time to write to your county councillors to stop this madness! All the links are listed below. Oh! No you don’t!


A Planning and Regulatory Committee Webcast meeting to be held by Surrey County Council on Thursday 21st May at 10.30am to consider the UK Oil and Gas application at the eastern end of High Loxley Road The site abuts the parish of Alfold’s boundary, so the paish council is urging villagers to listen-in.

Alfold Parish Council, alongside other Parish Council’s, district and town councils including Waverley orough Council have registered their strong objections on many grounds, including the impact of Alfold’s residents, local infrastructure, traffic safety and the scheme’s sustainability, being just a few reasons.

The Parish Council is not permitted to make representations at the Committee meeting but can be present (albeit virtually) to hear the arguments both for and against the proposals.

After all, why would it be allowed to have a say about such a controversial scheme right on its doorstep? Perish the thought!

Alfold Parish Council were expressly told that the application would be heard at the June meeting butwith just a few days notice heard that the application has been brought forward to Thursday May 21.

The Webcast link to the meeting is here > https://surreycc.public-i.tv/…/p…/webcast_interactive/486609 , and you should not need to register beforehand to listen in.

The Case Officers report can be viewed here > https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/…/Officer%20Loxley%20Repo…

If you have any comments to make on the application, please email Surrey County Councillors : victoria.young@surreycc.gov.uk; david.harmer@surreycc.gov.uk; nikki.barton@surreycc.gov.uk; andy.macleod@surreycc.gov.uk; peterj.martin@surreycc.gov.uk; andrew.f.povey@surreycc.gov.uk; stephen.spence@surreycc.gov.uk; penny.rivers@surreycc.gov.uk.


Here’s just one Alfold resident’s comments.


Dear Councillors


As you will hopefully now be aware there is significant opposition to these Proposals for UKOG for this Oil/Gas Drilling Application.

There are SO many reasons to simply say NO and you have to look at the many Neighbour, Business, Parish and Borough Objections as well. SCC has an obligation to listen to the Locals and Elected councillors and if they do not on Thursday we will all know that Democracy has left us and the 2021 elections will focus US ALL on this particular application as a strong reason to rethink previous voting decisions. There are many of us here that will ensure we do inform via social media and other sources, if this decision is taken to go ahead. I promise to do all I can to ensure that local residents are given the information they need to understand –  if you decide to go ahead with this Application.

I will not repeat the long list of Objections from the MANY that have posted on the website – Yet seem to have no impact on the Planners… I have to ask the question ( As I have on many occasions)  – What do they know that we don’t ?? Desk Based assessments are all good and well – But for goodness sakes there has to be some sort of communication – and there simply isn’t.. It leaves residents feeling their views are irrelevant and there is no Democracy.

It is incongruous that this application is being heard during this lockdown surely if footballers can play on a pitch with no contact YOU could have visited the site and seen the roads and local properties that will be affected within 500mtrs of the site, and yet you have decided  NOT to truly see the impacts it will have on the local communities and businesses in Dunsfold and the surrounding villages. This is an AGLV and adjacent to the AONB and this has to have some significance – not the insignificant impact that seems to be stated in the SCC Officers report…. Maybe if you live in Kingston it is not relevant– But it IS to those that will have to live with here in the East of the Borough.

It is well known (despite SCC Highways lack of objection) that these roads are totally unsuitable and unsafe in any sense of the word and 3 or 5 way phasing Traffic lights are not going to mitigate the chaos this is going to cause for however long this takes. It is a joke to even suggest they will be removed from 7pm – 7am (PLEASE!!)  Sites such as these should be established close to major Highways and NOT country lanes and small minor A roads – which the A281 is as we ALL KNOW.

There is has never been any sort of Cumulative Assessment of the impact on our roads from ALL the developments in the Area – each seems to have to be taken on its own merits – Surely SOMEONE in SCC Highways has to work out the TOTAL increase on the Highways (A281 and local roads) – Is that too much to ask for?

There are issues with The Water Framework Directive 2011, Light Pollution and noise which will affect the local residents and businesses. The potential of local tremors to many of the Grade II listed buildings in the areas has not been considered, nor the Environmental Habits Impact.

No consideration has been taken as to the impact on the Dunsfold Park current use as an Operational Airfield and its future use as a Business Park and Housing Village. The construction traffic alone will bring these minor roads to a standstill.

Finally SCC and WBC have all signed up to the Climate Change Emergency… How does this fit in with this? I understand that there is a need for locally sourced Gas/Oil so we are not importing from the Middle east etc… But this is not the answer – It is the destruction of the countryside that is the life and blood of THIS  country and I would have hoped that during this Pandemic that someone would have thought about this – The Countryside SHOULD be protected for what it can produce during times such as these – when we may need to look at producing our OWN food and not importing, when we can protect those Green Spaces which are the LUNGS of this great country – Do not Dig it all up for Housing/ Oil/ Gas. We need to look at sustainable means of supplying our energy – We need to look at means of making our Homes sustainable, we need to look at Building homes where people have access to all the facilities they expect and an infrastructure that supports them moving.  I happen to live in a Grade II listed building and looked at trying to be greener – But I am afraid I do not have £16K up front to do it ( You only get minimal repayments over years from the Government) We simply do not seem to have a Joined-up Policy on this it is just Build New homes regardless… Dig up the country-side for Gas/Oil – PLEASE  Think about this in a joined up way – not a piece meal way or you and this Country will fail massively

It is time we looked at the BIGGER picture and stopped looking at these short term solutions that TICK boxes.

Please Look at this with the views of the people that will have to deal with this for the next 5 years and remember that we will be voting and I really hope you can bear this in mind on Thursday

Look forward to the ZOOM event. I am just a private person who has only lived here for almost 6 years – But I love this place and I want the best for it. I have no political affiliations – I just care about what is happening here and I am afraid I am really angry about this an many other applications  and feel we have lost our Vote, our SAY in what is happening to a place we feel so much about – Please listen to us all – We care.


Kind regards

Denise Wordsworth


Zoom in on Cranleigh Village Health Trust’s latest cunning plan?


cranleigh village tshirt

Rumour has it that the Cranleigh charity thwarted by the Borough’s planners in BC – that’s life Before Covid – may be gearing up to have another crack at the whip.

On the basis that if at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try and try again, CVHT (Cranleigh Village Health Trust) formerly known as CVHT (Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust) – confused?  You will be!  They had to drop the ‘H’ word, as in ‘hospital’ because it was just too hot to handle.  And ‘hospital’ suggests that local people might want to use the facility they fund-raised for, whereas substitute the word ‘health’ and the world’s your oyster … at least it is if you’re a fee-paying wannabe nursing home resident, as opposed to a fund-raising local resident who wants to stay in the hospital you donated your hard earned dosh to!

So, will it be Plan 5?  Or is it Plan 6? … Or Plan 66?  Lets recap, shall we?

• First it was a replacement for the old Cottage Hospital, closed down by local health chiefs
• Then it was a replacement Cottage Hospital AND   a new GP surgery – with ambulatory services – and a Day Hospital, with minor injuries
• Then it morphed into a nursing home, with 20 community beds for ‘local people’
• Then it mushroomed into an even larger Care Home – with 20 community beds for anyone from anywhere – and they wanted to bolt on a block of apartments for local health-workers

Then … wait for it … wait for it… drum roll:

• They wanted a Care Home, 20 community beds AND an apartment block with 28 bedsits for health-workers from anywhere in the Primary Care Trust, or is that now Surrey Heartlands area!

Before you know it, they’ll have sold the site to McCarthy & Stone and they’ll be building luxury apartments for the over 55s from anywhere as long as they can afford them!

And, in case you’ve forgotten in all the drama of the Covid Crisis, this land they want to build on was once owned by Cranleigh parishioners.  CVHT snaffled it in what was sold to Cranleigh residents as a ‘land exchange’ but turned out to be nothing short of a ‘land grab’.  The land is now valued at £2.5 million by CVHT so, personally, we’d call that daylight robbery!

On Thursday evening representatives of the Cranleigh Village Health Trust (CVHT) formerly the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust (CVHT) will make a presentation to village leaders.  Not in person of course – the organisation will appear on Zoom – before a line-up of parish councillors including members of Waverley’s planning committees, one of whom is Chairman of Waverley’s planning committee.

Presumably, both Waverley BC and CVHT are hoping that out of sight is out of mind and they’re planning a stitch-up.  Whereas, what the residents of Cranleigh really want is a hold-up!

in a CONFIDENTIAL SESSION of the parish council and behind closed doors, councillors will consider another item on the Agenda. 

Screen Shot 2020-05-19 at 09.52.11



If you oppose oil and gas drilling at Dunsfold – write to your county councillors – NOW!


Better still! Start setting their telephones ringing!

Deputy Leader Paul Follows reiterates the Waverley Borough Council’s opposition to Surrey County Council’s bid to give the go-ahead to UCOG’s bid  to start drilling.
The video is on the link below:

The arrival of the Coronavirus fitted in quite nicely with the recommendation to approve the highly controversial scheme to be determined by Surrey county councillors on ZOOM this Thursday.  No site visit and little or no public protest or participation.

Listen to Paul Follows here:


Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 10.59.26

Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 10.59.54

Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 11.00.10Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 11.00.30

Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 11.00.41Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 11.00.52

Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 11.01.22Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 11.01.11

Screen Shot 2020-05-18 at 11.01.01

Drill or Drop? ‘Drill’ says Surrey County Council.


Planners back Dunsfold drilling site despite 80% public opposition.

‘Localism’ is finally dead – buried by the county council?

200513 Proposed site entrance SCCOfficials have supported plans by UK Oil & Gas for a new drilling site near the village of Dunsfold despite huge opposition from local people and every local parish and town council in the area.

A report  just published recommends the application be approved by the county council’s planning committee next week.

It acknowledged that the site is in a sensitive landscape and that the scheme would bring a “more industrialised feel” to the area.  There would also be an adverse effect on local businesses.


WW No problem there then? Just more traffic, on a road serving a business park at Dunsfold airfield and a new Garden Village just about to be built there!

But officials concluded the impact on the environment and local people would not be significant and would be outweighed by the need for oil and gas.

Concerns about “virtual” committee

The publication of the report has surprised local people. They had expected the decision would be made at the end of June.

Now the application will be decided at Surrey’s first virtual planning committee meeting, conducted online because of coronavirus restrictions, on 21 May.

WW understands councillors will not go on a site visit. Instead, they will be shown drone footage of the proposed site.

A spokesperson for the local campaign group, Protect Dunsfold, said:

200513 View from site to High Billinghurst Farm 2

Application details

UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) is seeking planning permission to drill vertical and sidetrack wells on a 2.3ha farmland site, one mile from the village.

The wells would explore for gas in the Portland sandstone and oil in the deeper Kimmeridge limestone.

The site is just outside the Green Belt and the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

It is part of an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).

The nearest home, Thatched House Farm, is 330m from the site. It supports a number of businesses and hosts an internationally-recognised cancer awareness festival each year.

Another property, High Billinghurst Farm, is a venue for weddings, funerals and other functions.

A traveller site and mobile home park are about 485m from the centre of the well site compound. A new settlement has also been approved for land nearby at Dunsfold Park.

UKOG’s application is for three years and would involve four phases of work:

  • access and well site construction – 14 weeks
  • drilling, testing and appraisal using a 38m high rig– 60 weeks
  • plugging, abandonment and decommissioning – 5 weeks
  • restoration – 5 weeks

The company has said the maximum number of movements by heavy goods vehicle would be 20 per day.

A 30m wide bell-mouth and 1km access track would connect the well site to a new junction onto High Loxley Road. 55 m of hedgerow and two trees would be removed. The carriageway at the junction of High Loxley Road and Dunsfold Road would be extended by up to 0.9m on all sides and strengthened to allow vehicles to turn into the site. There would also be road widening at Pratts corner.

An application for an alternative access route was withdrawn by UKOG in March 2020.

Local opposition

200513 Dunsfold proposed access SCC

According to the report, a public consultation on the application produced 469 written representations and four petitions. 78% of comments (367) were against the scheme.

Waverley Borough Council and Dunsfold, Bramley, Alford, Witley and Cranleigh parish councils all objected, some of them strongly. Local groups, including Campaign to Protect Rural England, Waverley Friends of the Earth and Surrey Wildlife Trust have also objected.

The borough council objected on 17 separate grounds. The council was particularly concerned that predicted noise would be above background levels, especially at night.

Surrey Wildlife Trust objected to the impact on climate change, ecology and the natural environment.

Dunsfold Aerodrome said the application had not properly considered the existing and proposed uses at Dunsfold Park, including the current operational airfield.

The Surrey Hills AONB said the proposal would “would be a seriously incongruous feature in the Area of Great Landscape Value and compensation should be provided if mitigation is insufficient”.

Other concerns raised by the consultation included:

  • Proposal is against government policy
  • Errors and incomplete information in the application
  • Lack of economic benefits
  • Unacceptable impact on local amenity and businesses
  • Landscape and visual impacts
  • Noise, air quality, lighting
  • Risk to highway safety at Pratts Corner junction and High Loxley/Dunsfold road junction
  • Impact on ecology, archaeology, heritage and rights of way
  • Clear felling on nearby woodland would expose the well

There were also calls for a restoration bond to ensure money was available to restore the site.


Just over a fifth of comments (102) supported the application. The main reasons given included:

  • Economic benefits
  • Reduced carbon footprint of domestically-produced oil and gas
  • Need
  • Low visual presence, noise and access

There was no objection from the Environment Agency, Natural England, Surrey Highway Authority, Surrey ecologist and countryside access team.

No surprise there then!

And here’s the local man behind the cunning plan, who lives just far enough away not to be bothered by the development. The elderly owner of the land in Dunsfold died recently.

Screen Shot 2020-05-16 at 10.45.22

A message from one of our followers across the pond in Canada.


Screen Shot 2020-05-15 at 10.06.58


As we have mentioned several times in the past our readers come from all over the world, and a few weeks ago  we heard from a gentleman living in Calgary,  Alberta.

Like so many people living abroad, they are avid watchers of television programmes concerning the property market like ‘Escape to the Country’ and ‘Love It Or List it.’ In fact, they often learn more about our beautiful country in 30 mins, than in a visit to our shores. 

Dear Editors:

Tonight my wife and I were binge-watching Love It or List It UK. 
An episode from 2016 involved residents of Cranleigh. We spotted a business on the High Street called The Lemon Tree. Looking up this business revealed development controversy that your publication covered in 2018. You reported due to changes in local policy more homes were going to be built in the village; that many businesses on the High Street would close as a result.
I am curious, as this is 2020, what became of that issue? Did as predicted all these businesses reported as going, going, gone pick up and leave? Did developing the brownfield parcels come about as they were supposed to be? Did the addition of these homes (~3K?) change the quiet nature of Cranleigh?
As they say, this enquiring mind wants to know, and hear back from you. Take care, stay healthy.
Darryl Darwent
Calgary, Alberta
Dear Darryl,
Greetings from lock-down Britain, where the virus is sprouting up faster than the daffodils at present and life is anything but normal. However, our spirits are high and we live in hope and dream about the day when normal service will be resumed and we can get on with life again.
Some of us think that life will never be quite the same, and we may have to do things differently in future. Perhaps this was a lesson we all needed to learn – about the planet and the way we live with it, and not just on it?

Thank you for contacting us here at the Waverley Web – and we are doing a considerable amount of research at present to answer all your questions about life in Cranleigh following all the development.

Glad to hear that your enquiring mind prompted you to write to us, it is always good to hear from readers abroad.  Please do not hesitate to contact us, and perhaps if you have the time!!!! tell us how life and the virus are affecting your lives over there.

Waverley Web

 To answer your question, which did require quite a bit of research.
  • The Lemon Tree, which was a very popular small gift shop, has sadly CLOSED. But another retailer selling Eco goods has sprouted up in its place – and despite the Lock-down is one of the few shops open for business.
  • What will happen to the other shops, is anyone’s guess. We hear that some have already put up the CLOSED signs, for good.
  • Waverley Borough Council’s Local Plan for the borough of Waverley, which includes Cranleigh was passed, and development has forged ahead with another 1,500 homes consented – approximately 250 of which have now been constructed.
  • As you will no doubt have heard, we have been enduring some unprecedented times here on our side of the pond, and as we write well over 33,000 of our citizens have sadly died from the Coronavirus, which is casting its vicious net world-wide.
  • Yes, the brownfield sites you mentioned were agreed by local and Central Government including a garden village of some 2,600 homes on Dunsfold Airfield. (Which by the way is the home of Top Gear) and, yes, we believe all these homes when finally built will almost certainly change the quiet nature of the once rural character of the village of Cranleigh. Whether that change is for the better – we rest our case!

Dear William,

Sorry for such a late reply. It has been 60 days since I was told our office would be shutting down due to COVID-19 concerns. I am a federal government worker; an administrative assistant in the tax department. Since then my wife and I have been isolating in our house in northwest Calgary. Overall we have fared very well. My pay continues to come in.
We have been buying groceries online, and the store delivers them. We deferred our mortgage for three months. We had a person who was renting some basement space at the time the restrictions came into being; we stressed we would like her to stay home (both my wife and I have existing medical conditions). She being younger than us, and single felt we were imposing on her. After about forty-five days she decided to move out. Since then my wife and I have been enjoying our time together. We have never been bored. There is plenty to watch on TV; we have lots of books to read; we have music; we have each other. My wife sews. The “honey-do list” is fairly long. The only thing about that last item is that I have discovered my ability to procrastinate is just as strong as when I did not have enough time to do the work. Ha ha.
Initially, I took on the attitude that the government was paying me to stay at home. Thus, I was going to master that task. Other than the short walk to the mailbox, I was achieving that goal. On the few really nice sunny days we would sit at the top of our driveway to enjoy the warmth and speak to neighbours passing by. I recognise now that I should have put a priority on being active (i.e., walking or using an exercise bike). I had lost weight after New Year’s. Unfortunately, it has come back onto my bones. Last week we drove out to the surrounding countryside. Both of us are hobby photographers. As Spring is upon us here we thought the trip would be inspiring; that we could witness some wildlife returning after a cold winter.  It was a great experience. We limited our contact with others by staying in our vehicle.
This week I have started to work from home.  I had to go to the office last week and on Tuesday to pick up some computer equipment. It is all set up in my basement. I am tuned in to the needs of my managers. It has been a bit slow to begin with, still, it’s nice to have some purpose. After twenty years in my position, I am hoping this experience will be a catalyst to show my employer that I can do this job from home. Before restrictions were put in place I was commuting an average of two hours a day on transit. This often meant leaving home at seven in the morning and coming home at six o’clock. Immediately I’d make supper, clean up the dishes, then decide what to do with the next ninety minutes afterwards before going to bed. I don’t like a rushed life. I value spending time with my spouse and/or the time to go somewhere in the evening. I have 6-7 years left in my federal career before I retire. The ability to work from home would be good for us to see what that might be like, and create a plan for when that time arrives.
Life at home has been good. We hope for a better society to come out of this crisis. So we pray.
I wish you good health.
PS. As I mentioned in my first email we have been enjoying videos/shows produced in your country.
I know that Britain has had a real bad time with COVID-19. I hope that you personally haven’t been touched by this tragedy. From what we have been viewing we think you Brits are a great bunch of people. We hope someday to travel and tour the U.K.
Sincerely yours,
Darryl Darwent
Calgary, Alberta

Oh! for the luxury of a basement!

Who gets the Waverley Web’s award for cheek of the week?


Redgrave Brightwells.jpg

 The lawns and flowers have long since been replaced with rubble and construction waste – and it now seems the garden’s trees are destined for the same fate, after developer Crest Nicholson applied for yet another ‘non-material amendment’ to its Brightwells regeneration scheme.

The FTSE 100 developer’s plans – to chop down a copper beech, cedar and London plane adorning the grounds of the Grade II-listed Brightwell House – are in direct conflict with its 2016 planning agreement with Waverley Borough Council.


BECAUSE… Crest Nicholson claims…” the copper beech “will not adjust to the changes around it”, the cedar “is of a species that is fragile”, and that if these trees are removed, the London plane “will be incongruous in the new setting”.

Because the people of Farnham have kicked up such a stink Waverley Planners have been forced to consider the so called ‘ non material amendment’ before a planning committee.

Godalming’s Deputy (Paul Follows) and Farnham’s Leader (John Ward) called on officers to bring the matter before the planners, rather than it being considered by officers under powers delegated to them behind closed doors. It will now go before a ‘virtual’ planning committee on Zoom.

Crest’s application follows a succession of controversial revisions to its mixed-use development scheme in East Street, first granted planning permission in 2012, which the Farnham Society claim have all been made “to the economic benefit of the developer and to the detriment of Farnham”.

These include removing the Brightwell bowling club and later the Brightwells Gostrey Centre from the development site, removing the scheme’s social rented and affordable housing, and reducing the land value Crest was to pay Waverley from a reported £20 million in 2003 to just £3.19m.

In its own letter of objection, the Farnham Society gave no fewer than 18 grounds for refusal, concluding:

“The impact that the loss of the trees would have on the residents of Farnham is untold.

“It is the committee’s view that, although not a planning consideration, all confidence would be lost in the council as well as the planning department who are already held in very low esteem.”

Farnham Residents councillor Mr Ward said: “There is considerable concern over the Crest application to Fell some more trees including the large copper beech at Brightwells.

“Just to re-assure residents that it will not be an officer delegated decision as I have organised for this to be done transparently and openly by coming to the planning committee so that councillors can make the decision publicly.”

The Waverley Web has been told that this meeting is likely to take place in June, giving the council time to buy in the necessary hardware and update its own computer systems to enable ’virtual’ meetings to be screened online. The first virtual EXECUTIVE meeting was held successfully on Tuesday.



At last, Public Health England has published some really local data for Coronavirus incidents, including those in ‘Your Waverley.’ But this makes very little sense to us here at the Waverley Web.

Is it really a fact that there are only 275 ‘confirmed cases’ among Waverley’s population who have tested positive for Covid-19?

No mention of how many deaths? Even the Royal Surrey Hospital’s Chief Executive could not, or would not, give a figure for the death toll when she was interviewed recently.

At last night’s Waverley virtual Executive meeting, councillors said they had NO information on the extent of the virus in the borough. WW asks – WHY NOT? We are not mushrooms to be kept in the dark, we are grown-ups and need to know the facts. How can we, or our borough council begin to know what it is up against if it doesn’t have the data on which to base its response?

Waverley’s population was (121,572 in the 2011 census, now, of course it has many more. So going by Surrey County Council’s statistics, provided by Public Health England, just .23% of our borough’s residents have been infected by COVID-19.

No mention how many people have died? Why not? How can anyone take the lock-down measures seriously when so little factual information is available.

The WW has first-hand personal information of more than half-a-dozen people who have died, mainly in Waverley’s nursing homes. And our thoughts and sympathy go to those families who have lost their loved ones. We also know of numerous others who have suffered from the virus but have never been offered a test by their GP’s.

Guildford Borough has had 343 confirmed cases of Covid-19 to (May 7).

The table below gives the number of confirmed cases in each of Surrey’s lower-tier authorities, including the Borough of WAVERLEY. Previously figures were only given for upper-tier authorities, mainly of county size.

Screen Shot 2020-05-11 at 18.43.24.png

Also included, is the number of Coronavirus infections per 100,000 of the population which allows a comparison of infection rates in different authority areas.

Guildford’s rate of 232 infections per 100,000 people is about average compared with other neighbouring and nearby Surrey boroughs and districts. Waverley’s along with  Woking to the north has the lowest.

Only confirmed cases, following laboratory testing, are shown. It is not known if, or when, cases discovered at the new testing centre at the Onslow Park & Ride will be included. It is generally agreed by experts that there will be many other Covid-19 cases where symptoms have been unnoticed, mild, or did not require hospital treatment.

The new data release coincides with criticism from scientific experts of redactions made to a report criticising government lockdown proposals.

In a Guardian article Stephen Reicher, a professor of social psychology at the University of St Andrews is quoted as saying: “Personally, I am more bemused than furious. The greatest asset we have in this crisis is the trust and adherence of the public. You want to trust? You need to be open with people. This isn’t open. It is reminiscent of Stalinist Russia. Not a good look.”

Useful Information.

On education specifically, there are at least four documents. They are:
The Department for Business, Energy and Industry Strategy has produced eight separate guides on how to keep employees safe in the different workplace environment. You can find links to all eight here.
And now, this morning, the Department for Transport has produced transport guidance. There are two main documents:

New maternity hubs open in Farnham and Cranleigh.


What better way to celebrate International Nurses’ & Midwife Day? Florence Nightingale’s 200th birthday.

New Royal Surrey maternity hubs opened in Farnham and Cranleigh

MUMS-TO-BE will now be able to receive improved and fully-integrated maternity care, in a first for NHS trusts in the area thanks to the launch of two new maternity hubs for women local to Farnham and Cranleigh.

“We are very excited to launch our new hubs – they will be a fantastic resource for the women and babies of Surrey,” said Amy Stubbs, deputy director of midwifery for Royal Surrey.”

Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust is leading the way in implementing a fully evidence-based ‘continuity of carer’ approach to maternity services that improve health outcomes by providing a patient with a small group of the same midwives and clinicians they can get to know and trust.

The new hubs will provide women with ante-natal and post-natal support, with one of the local maternity teams being present for their birth.

This integrated approach to care, an approach first mooted in the 1980’s, will mean the women will already know their midwife before giving birth. This facilitates greater positive birth experiences and improves the health wellbeing of mother and child.

The hub in Farnham will be midwifery-led, while the Cranleigh hub, based in the Cranleigh Village Hospital, one of the oldest cottage hospital’s in the country, will be supported by midwives, obstetricians and consultant paediatricians. This comes as a welcome extension to the other new services now on offer in Cranleigh.

A new X-Ray department was opened a year ago thanks to £500,000 supplied by the Cranleigh League of Friends. The League, which is supported by residents of Cranleigh and the surrounding villages has a healthy bank balance and it also supports end of life care there.

Amy continued: “We hope this new integrated service and environment will give local women the added confidence and peace of mind in a time that can be very scary and anxious for them.”

Jo Mountjoy, the chief nurse for the trust, recently visited the Cranleigh hub and commented:

“This is absolutely brilliant for local mothers and will make a huge difference to how supported they feel during their pregnancy, birth, and postnatally.

“We have seen how continuity of carer can mean fewer interventions and fewer preterm births and it is just lovely to be able to provide this holistic care to women in the community.

“We would also like to say thank you to the Cranleigh League of Friends who donated the funds for the refurbishment and equipment at the Cranleigh Hub, it is greatly appreciated.”

Women who would like to enquire about registering at either hub should go to the Royal Surrey Maternity website www.royalsurrey.nhs.uk/maternity and complete a referral form.

The Prime Minister’s announcement could have the phones ringing at Your Waverley’s CAB?


Screen Shot 2020-05-11 at 10.13.26.png

Will Waverley’s Citizens’ Advice Bureau, based in Godalming will be putting its advisors on a crash course on the Employment Rights Act following Boris Johnson’s announcement last night?

They can be contacted here: Citizens Advice Waverley

Here’s Waverley’s Deputy Leader Paul Follows take, so far….

Following the announcements tonight I have already had residents ask me if they are going to be forced to go into work tomorrow or soon even if it isn’t safe?

All asking if could they be fired or their pay cut if they do not come in when they are told to.

Let’s just look at the law:

➡️ Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides employees with the right not to suffer a detriment or be dismissed for refusing to work in circumstances where they believe they would be in serious and imminent danger. It provides employees with the ‘right’ to withdraw from and to refuse to return to a workplace that is unsafe. Employees are entitled to remain away from the workplace (e.g. stay at home) if — in their opinion — the prevailing circumstances represent a real risk of serious and imminent danger which they could not be expected to avert.

Safety needs to come before profit but CLARITY needs to come before even that.

Please don’t panic.

Lots of this messaging from government was clearly a bit last minute tonight and as soon as I have the guidance and the detail (that surely has to come with this) I can comment further.

We know from past announcements that we will now get several days of ‘clarification’. I would advise local business to wait for that too. Let’s hope we get that?

Work – (if you can’t work from home) and only if it is safe to do so (and also safe to get to) was the one bit I did (sort of) get from this. Who defines what ‘safe’ is and how that is policed are but two of my questions.

The statement was also (in my opinion) detached from the reality of life for most low-income workers regarding how people travel to and from work and their employment situation in general. Many will also have members of their families who are shielded.

Please let me know if you have any concerns about this, and especially if you have concerns about your working arrangements. I know Waverley Citizens Advice will be a good place to call too on this one.

STAYING HOME and staying safe is still the mantra I will be following for as long as I can. I am also not entirely sure how I can stay any more ‘alert’ than I am. Diluting that message at this stage (in my personal view) is putting the economy over peoples’ lives.

Further updates to come when (and if) we get that much needed clarity.

Cllr Paul Follows
Deputy Leader, Waverley Borough Council

📧 Paul.follows@waverley.gov.uk


Screen Shot 2020-05-11 at 10.15.18


A message from a man who knows how to keep in touch with his residents.





Paul Follows, Deputy Leader of ‘Your Waverley’ Councillor Paul Follows.  Stay Home, Stay Safe, Save the NHS – because it is still working around the clock.

📌 WBC services and contacts over Early May Bank Holiday 📧☎️

➡️ http://socsi.in/pG30V


📌 Council services over Early May Bank Holiday:

WBC will be closed from 5.15pm on Thursday 7 May, and services will resume on Monday 11 May.

Some officers will be working over the weekend to support vulnerable people who are self-isolating.

For more details about:
➡️ Help for vulnerable people
➡️ Bins and recycling
➡️ Emergency contacts

Visit the website 👉 socsi.in/pG30V

♻️ This weekend the Surrey Recycling Centres reopen too – please see my previous post on that, here : ➡️ https://bit.ly/SurreyCCRecycle

SOME of Waverley’s recycling centres open on Monday.

And of course, if you need me I am available on here or at 📧Paul.follows@waverley.gov.uk

Cllr Paul Follows
Leader, Godalming Town Council
Deputy Leader, Waverley Borough Council

SOME of Waverley’s recycling centres open on Monday.


The phased re-opening of Community reycling centres begins next Monday.  

However, if you live in the east of the borough get your bikes out, pack your green waste and black back in your saddle-bags and get cycling 20 miles over to the Witley dump.

Screen Shot 2020-05-07 at 22.48.48.png

Because Cranleigh’s Nanhurst Recycling Centre has been dumped for the time being along with other smaller CRC’s in Surrey. So Surrey County Council has pulled the plug on Crnleigh once again.

Due to the fewer number of people who can safely be on site and the impact of potential queuing on surrounding roads, although Witley and Farnham will be open smaller sites in Cranleigh, Bagshot, Caterham Dorking and Warlingham will remain closed.

This is due to the fewer numbers of people who can safely be on site and the impact of potential queuing on surrounding roads.

When opening hours were reduced at the Cranleigh site last year, huge traffic queues built up and the Elmbridge Road was gridlocked. the county council feared the same would happen due to the lock-down due to the Coronavirus. This impacted on the dangerous A281 Nanhurst Crossroads.

 Restrictions will be in place to ensure that each facility can operate in line with Public Health England guidelines to protect the safety of staff and residents.

The number of people allowed on site at one time will be limited and there will be revised opening hours and changes to what materials are accepted. During the first reopening phase only black bag waste and garden waste will be accepted. Residents should only use the CRCs if they absolutely need to, and must check for the latest information before they travel, as these arrangements are subject to change. 

No vans, pick-ups or trailers will be allowed into the CRCs during the initial phases of re-opening, this is to limit the amount of waste brought in at any one time.

As outlined in DEFRA guidance, journeys to waste sites are only allowed under the lockdown restrictions if the waste materials cannot be stored at home without causing risk of injury or harm to health.

Instead of clapping let’s use our energies to keep our NHS public?


Screen Shot 2020-05-06 at 20.14.09.pngScreen Shot 2020-05-06 at 19.51.56.png

Thanks to the Godalming branch of The Compass Group the Waverley Web joined a Webinar presented by
 Keep Our NHS Public and Health Campaigns Together.

We heard from expert analysts, frontline NHS workers and the producer of Under The Knife (feature documentary on the covert dismantling of the NHS) to hear about how, aggravated by Government callousness and incompetency in the early stages of the Coronavirus outbreak, the NHS has already been defunded, understaffed and privatised to such an extent that its preparedness for the current emergency has been severely undermined and has needlessly cost lives.

Speakers included:
Neena Modi – Professor of Neonatal Medicine, Consultant at Imperial College London and Chelsea & Westminster Hospital; President, Medical Women’ Federation; Immediate Past-President, Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health; Director, Neonatal Data Analysis Unit
Professor Allyson Pollock – Consultant in public health and director of Newcastle University Centre for Excellence in Regulatory Science
Dr John Lister – editor of Health Campaigns Together, co-editor Lowdownnhs.info,
Dr Sonia Adesara – Junior Doctor and member of KONP’s NHS Staff Voices
Pam Kleinot – Producer of Under The Knife

It is worth remembering that health is not a commodity and healthcare is not a business and we must not allow all those who have died from the Coronavirus, to have died in vain.

 Speakers relayed to a large following some of the catastrophic mistakes made by the Government since the Coronavirus hit our shores. They highlighted the years of mismanagement leading to us becoming THE worst country in Europe for deaths or long-term damage as a result of the Covid-19 epidemic.

But there were more worrying concerns as Health Secretary, following in the footsteps of our SW Surrey MP Jeremy Hunt continues the onward march towards privatisation.

Speakers outlined the cumulative impact of 20 years of ineptitude and privatisation that has led to a much-weakened NHS that has been de-stabilised now resulting in a Crisis in Social Care.

Screen Shot 2020-05-05 at 21.21.38Why has the Government brought in new super labs, affectively shutting off NHS labs for testing?

Why are 40per cent of  NHS beds closed to patients, urgently needing medical attention while doctors stand by helpless, under-utilised and frustrated?

Speakers called for a full investigation – not another public inquiry which would take years – but determine now why thousands of elderly people have died needlessly in Care Homes, leaving families and carers devastated and traumatised. This includes care homes in the borough of Waverley? In one home  – rated by The Care Quality Commission  as – OUTSTANDING  – five residents died in just one night!

And, where is the local data? Where are the figures for deaths of Waverley residents?

The tragedy on the old the length and breadth of the country will undoubtedly come back to haunt the Tory Party membership. Many of whose members are among the vulnerable elderly,  some of whom have been left to die in homes without protection, testing and with conflicting information. Where GP’s were prevented from visiting.

Why did the Government stop tracking and tracing in mid-March? Why has local government been side-lined – why haven’t all local environmental health officers been utilised to track and trace? And why has a private company, alleged to be an associate  of Government advisor Dominic Cummins, been awarded  a £250m contract, without any public scrutiny, or debate, to introduce an NHS app to the Isle of Wight – a place where most are elderly and many of whom probably don’t even own a SmartPhone?

Claims The government is using the coronavirus pandemic to transfer key public health duties from the NHS and other state bodies to the private sector without proper scrutiny, were raised during the Webinar, during which participants could add questions and comments.

Doctors, campaign groups, academics and MPs raised the concerns about a “power grab” after it emerged on Monday that Serco was in pole position to win a deal to supply 15,000 call-handlers for the government’s tracking and tracing operation.  

Screen Shot 2020-05-06 at 19.51.56.pngThey said the health secretary, Matt Hancock, had “accelerated” the dismantling of state healthcare and that the duty to keep the public safe was being “outsourced” to the private sector.

In recent weeks, ministers have used special powers to bypass normal tendering and award a string of contracts to private companies and management consultants without open competition.

Deloitte, KPMG, Serco, Sodexo, Mitie, Boots and the US data-mining group Palantir have secured taxpayer-funded commissions to manage Covid-19 drive-in testing centres, the purchasing of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the building of Nightingale Hospitals. 

We heard, that the Department of Healthhas written to NHS trusts instructing them to stop buying any of their own PPE and ventilators.

Questions from the public, including the Waverley Web came thick and fast about the 31 testing centres. They asked why care workers living in Norfolk were offered testing in Glasgow and Aberdeen? Said speaker John Lester – in a word, “Bizarre.”

He said 13 separate contracts had been awarded to private companies, which were completely dysfunctional, the army was brought in – then a Government Tzar who managed the Olympics.

The group called for the Health & Social Care Act, currently suspended, to be dumped once the crisis is over. Investigation held into why The Nightingale Hospitals referred to as ‘Dead White Elephants’  were not used to treat non-Covid patients rather than paying private hospitals millions of pounds  to carry out a few elective operations for NHS patients.  Hospitals which are only able to deal with minor cases, as most have few experienced staff, no emergency departments and no Intensive Care facilities.

  • In the system – there were 10,000 Private Care Beds – Empty
  • Thousands of Nightingale Beds –  Empty
  • and Thousands of NHS beds –  Empty

Speakers and the public agreed: It just doesn’t make sense!

Said Neena Modi – “There is a substantial amount of public funds going into private sector pockets.” People do have hearts of gold, clapping and donating to the NHS – but the NHS is a publicly funded organisation and they should instead use that money to clamour for much-needed change. To keep the NHS PUBLIC”

Speakers want the public reassured that the NHS is a public service and in common with the Health Service Journal (HSJ) believed former Strategic Health Authorities would have been better placed to deal with the crisis.

The non-politically aligned organisation is considering public protests when the crisis has passed – believing that when the clapping stops the public must be mobilised to stop creeping privatisation of OUR health services. It wanted infection and disease control put back into local hands. through a better financed local government, which once had the expertise and more important, strong local knowledge to deal with a track and racing during a pandemic.

Lack of space prevents us from reporting speakers’ concerns on the Cinderella Service of Mental Health, the service needed to deal with the Sunami of patient and health workers predicted to follow the pandemic. Also the effect of the pandemic  on both maternal and child health which will be affected for many years to come.

For more information: nationaladmin@keepournhspublic.com.

You can watch the webinar video on Facebook. at keepournhspublic.

This video by Professor Allyson Pollock – Consultant in public health and director of Newcastle University Centre for Excellence in Regulatory Science  narrated by Alison Steadman is well worth watching. It will be available until Sunday 10th May https://vimeo.com/360850524

Screen Shot 2020-05-06 at 20.29.58.png




Is Surrey’s PCC a bit of a hypocrite?


You couldn’t make it up – really you couldn’t. What a very short memory Surrey’s Police and Crime Commissioner possesses?  

Munroe gets th boot

Munro gets the boot from the Guildford Conservative Association


The man who has had his tenure extended for a further year due to the postponement of this month’s PCC election is now calling for more traveller sites!

WWeb thinks the man doth protest too much. Twas he of the two-faced variety that persistently resisted  any gypsy sites becoming established on land near Dunsfold airfield when he was a Tory councillor at ‘Your Waverley.’ 

Research by the WW reveals this protracted planning saga concerned private land bought by an elderly Romany named Lydia. The battle between the gypsies and ‘Your Waverley’ spanned a decade and appeals went through five public inquiries – costing many hundreds of thousands of pounds. It was finally consented by a Government Inspector, as he argued the council had not provided its share of traveller sites in its area.  

 ‘Your Waverley’ under its former Tory administration then extended the New Acres transit site in Stovolds  Hill by another 37 pitches. The planners have recently allowed another site to become established near Lydia Park in Stovolds Hill. So there are now four sites within spitting distance of Dunsfold’s proposed new Government-backed Garden Village.

Are Waverley’s eastern​ villages under siege​?​ From up, down, and all-around​?

Mr Munro who was adamantly opposed to gypsy sites in Waverley during his term at Waverley and then again at Surrey County Council now does a complete volte-face and says he wants temporary sites set up in Surrey – as a “matter of urgency.” He says the Government  – should take on greater responsibility by compelling local authorities to provide sites.” Really, Mr Munro – really?  

Here is an article from the Guildford Dragon.

Screen Shot 2020-04-29 at 19.47.46.png

Screen Shot 2020-04-29 at 19.47.31.png


Communities Minister Robert Jenrick promises councils will not be out of pocket by Covid-19. But ‘Your Waverley’ is not so sure.


On the BBC Today programme Communities Minister Robert ‘Covid rules are not meant for me’ –  Jenrick, made a pledge.

He said beleaguered local authorities faced with dramatically reduced revenue – from such services as leisure, car parks etc, would not be disadvantaged by the Covid-19 epidemic. He said £16 billion had already been handed to the country’s local authorities to handle the crisis. He gave assurances that local councils would not be left short of funds. the link below is not from yesterday’s TODAY programme. This is one he made earlier.


Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 18.59.05.png

The big black hole at the Godalming Town Council Zoom meeting is the Waverley Web. The WWeb Zooms in on Godalming Town Council.

But when Waverley’s Deputy leader spoke at Godalming Town Council Cllr Paul Follows said he had grave doubts about receiving further funding in future.  He also registered his, and his Executive’s concern, at the Government’s directive that planning services should continue – recently through planning officers’ delegated powers. Though two combined planning meetings for either side of the borough would go ahead when technology was available.

He said the government had handed out two significant tranches of cash to both the county and borough authorities. But said:

“It simply will not be enough.”

He explained the Government was funding only the direct costs of the Covid-19 epidemic, but this did not include the loss of revenue – such as venue hire, leisure centre income, car parks and more. He said it would be prudent for the town, parish and the borough councils to prepare for losses until at least October. The Government’s help does not include any town or parish councils. However, Waverley’s Executive was proposing to write to every town and parish council asking for their combined costs associated with the current emergency in an attempt to seek Government compensation.

He said: “They must be compensated for all their good work during these difficult times, but I very much doubt this will be available, and I expect councils will all be in the same place next year?”

Councillors Steve Cosser and Peter Martin both agreed that further funding to compensate local authorities either at Waverley or the county council would be unlikely to be forthcoming.

Councillor Steve Williams said that whilst the Town Council’s focus must be on supporting the community it would be …

‘It is utterly obscene if the Government doesn’t compensate us all for the additional expenditure and loss of revenue that will eminate from this crisis.  By the time the lockdown is lifted we don’t want the local community to be   battered and bruised because of additional costs because that won’t help the economic recovery.’

We knew it, nursing homes knew it, hospitals and their staff knew it. Now…even…our local entrepreneur knows it.


Our MP Jeremy Hunt who helped to leave us totally unprepared for the Covid-19 pandemic.

Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 19.46.18.png

Pleased with myself, of course, I’m pleased with myself. Now I can sit on the sidelines and criticise the Government, for the mistakes I made.” 

Screen Shot 2020-03-19 at 10.14.16.png

So who better to chair an influential Commons committee responsible for scrutinising the Government’s NHS and social care performance than… yes, you guessed. The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt our MP for South West Surrey!

After 15 years as our MP, The Hon Jeremy has also just recognised that Farnham’s serious air quality and traffic issues should have been dealt with.

Wow! Halleluiah!! Now spurred on by his showing in the general election, along with others, he now pledges to find a solution to air quality issues that are disappearing as we write. Due to the unforeseen benefit of the virus which has traffic disappearing like magic from our streets.

 Problem solved?

Whilst campaigning to become our next Prime Minister Jeremy Hunt made the jaw-dropping admission that he had been responsible for the cuts to health and social care. And as they say down on the farm – all the chickens are now coming home to roost. For weeks he has been pontificating about one thing and another. Calling for a massive ramping up of testing.  As the longest Secretary of State for Health shouldn’t he have ensured there were adequate infection controls and apparatus available to deal with a pandemic, should one ever arise?

So where were you, Jeremy, when you ignored The  Cygnus Exercise findings? Busy purchasing Bye to Lets or fighting junior doctors?

How do we ever learn lessons if we don’t look back on past mistakes?Tell the Truth

 In 2016 the Government conducted a full-scale pandemic response exercise called ‘Cygnus’. The purpose of this was to understand the areas of strain in the NHS should there be a viral pandemic. It had many findings, but three stand out:

A lack of critical care beds;

A lack of ventilators;

                                                         A lack of personal, protective equipment (PPE).

‘Your Waverley’s’ Deputy Leader Paul Follows has dared to speak out and has been trolled for doing so by non-other than Mr.Hunt’s Election Agent Sean-Donovan-Smith, who accuses him of politicising the Coronavirus epidemic. Perish the thought that SDS would ever do such a thing! A  couple of other Tory trolls also waded in on social media, because they just can’t get over losing control of Waverley Council.. We will post on Cllr Follows letter to JH with his comments in a later post. image0-1


Now Mr Hunt is calling for changes to social care. The very same social care that has been galloping towards the abyss for years, under his 16 year watch. Now judgment day has arrived and thousands of old people have died, or have been seriously injured by the Covid-19 epidemic together with their grieving families. In nursing homes where there has been, up until a week ago – no testing and without PPE. By a Government that has just woken up to the fact that the elderly, living cheek by jowel  in nursing homes are – “vulnerable.” Welcome to the Planet Zonk?

Screen Shot 2020-03-19 at 10.39.51.png

Screen Shot 2020-05-03 at 19.50.32

Mr. Hunt has now been elected chair of an influential Commons committee responsible for scrutinising the government’s NHS and social care performance.

He is no doubt well aware by now that here in his constituency like others in Surrey the County Council can only provide care at home to those in ‘critical need’ and we have evidence that not all even those will ever receive care! 

The social care system also relies on nursing home residents paying top whack until all their funds dry up, to subsidise local authority residents as the fees the council pay is considerably lower.  Many care homes around the country are now in crisis and carers unprepared for the coronavirus that homes face. Mr. Hunt, the longest-serving health secretary and a cabinet minister in both David Cameron and Theresa May’s administration, defeated Tory rivals to head the committee in a secret ballot.


How Surrey County Council and ‘Your Waverley’ has been helping residents during Covid-19.


Screen Shot 2020-05-02 at 10.15.48.png

Surrey Local Resilience Forum

The Surrey Local Resilience Forum (SLRF) is coordinating the county-wide response to Coronavirus and incorporates all partners across Surrey. It’s being led by Surrey County Council, Surrey Police and Surrey Fire and Rescue Service working closely with District and Borough councils and all health partners. They are also working alongside many many community, voluntary sector and faith groups who are co-ordinating projects at a local level. All of this alongside the tireless work of volunteers. The infographic serves to demonstrate visually the variety of accomplishments we have achieved so far together and all of the organisations that are involved.

SLRF key areas of focus so far

Here is what the key areas of focus have been so far, facilitated by a team of volunteers and people behind the scenes looking at the logistics of it all and of course at some stage we will then be looking at what recovery looks like.


As with across the UK there has been a call out for Personal Protective Equipment for our frontline staff. We are leaving no stone unturned and exploring every possible avenue available to get more.
Our 4 main ways of getting PPE are through our strategy of:
1. Receiving Government supplies and distribute them across Surrey
2. Procuring our own supplies and distributing them across Surrey
3. Receiving donated PPE, checking and sorting before distributing across Surrey
4. Receiving locally produced PPE, checking and sorting before distributing across Surrey
To find out more visit Surrey County Council Coronavirus Help Us Provide PPE web pages.

Headley Court Hospital and Mortuary Provision

Another development expected imminently is the opening of NHS Headley Court Surrey in Leatherhead. The work that has gone into standing up a new hospital in just a matter of weeks is another great example of Health and LRF partners working together to deliver a much-needed facility quickly. The new Headley Court facility will begin taking patients in the coming days, and will prove to be essential in relieving the pressure not only on our hospitals but also to our care homes, with step down bed capacity for patients coming out of acute hospitals before they are readmitted to care settings.

The site will also house a temporary mortuary to cover the wider Surrey geography. The mortuary facility, which has been put in place by the Surrey Local Resilience Forum, is part of an ongoing plan to ensure the deceased are treated with dignity and respect and will begin to take over from existing temporary sites at the University of Surrey in Guildford and at Surrey Fire and Rescue Service Headquarters in Reigate.


People in Surrey who are eligible for a coronavirus test can find answers to their essential questions by going online at www.surreycc.gov.uk/coronavirustesting

A revised, bespoke page clearly sets out who is now eligible for a test, how to book, information about the different types of tests available, and useful videos explaining how testing is carried out.

Welfare and Volunteering

A Welfare and Volunteering group has been set up to support the most vulnerable people in Surrey. The number of whom is growing as this crisis continues. A food hub set up at The Spectrum in Guildford is getting hundreds of food parcels out every week – with the help of volunteers from Guildford Borough Council, Team Rubicon UK, Surrey County Council and other members of the community. There have also been over 15,000 calls now to shielded residents, checking that they are OK and what support they may need this also includes home visits to some hard to reach people who are vulnerable and isolated. This is in addition to more than 4,000 calls to our community helpline.

Community Helpline 0300 200 1008

The Community Helpline is there to give people help and support if they need it for such things as picking up shopping, medicines or arranging someone to call them for a friendly chat. They are also able to help point you in the right direction for local help and advice. 0300 200 1008 Monday to Friday 8am – 6pm and Saturday and Sunday 10am – 2pm.

Check out the Surrey County Council Coronavirus web site, that has lots of helpful information and advice whether you’re a resident or a business in Surrey, including information on helplines, latest Government advice, testing, ways to offer help, latest scams update and much more.

The WWeb Zooms in on Godalming Town Council.


It was a first for Godalming Town Council and a first for the Waverley Web as we Zoomed in on its council meeting – we believe unnoticed?

Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 16.52.27

 Why can’t all parish and town councils be held remotely? It was slick, efficient – lasted just an hour and a half – and we all had time to go outside and applauded the NHS – along with everyone else in the country. Well done Godalming Town Council – now tell ‘Your Waverley’ to get Zooming?


The Parish Clerk Andrew Jeffery had obviously been on a Zooming ‘Masterclass’ judging by the efficient way he brought in speakers, handled the meeting and recorded votes.  Mayor of Godalming Penny Rivers chaired the meeting and  appeared completely unphased by the new technology marching through the business of these ‘unusual and challenging times.’

Of one thing there was no doubt – Godalming Town Councillors are working together as a team – for the good of its residents. Party Politics (PP) alive and well before Coronavirus (BC), has no place in the workings of today’s town’s leaders. Proving that good sometimes raises its head when all about appears to be losing theirs?

In addition to the everyday business – approving policies and the work of its committees – Godalming councillors spoke as one – of the commitment, dedication of its staff who had worked tirelessly to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the town and village folk they serve.

Screen Shot 2020-04-30 at 19.02.20.png

‘Team Godalming has proved a very effective team” said Mayor Penny Rivers. 

Mayor Penny Rivers welcomed everyone to Zoom – saying: “This is a new experience for us all.”

Wasting no time, she called on Cllr  Paul Rivers for the introduction of an Initiative to declare Godalming a Plastic Free Zone. This followed an earlier presentation by Karen McDonald of The Plastic Free Campaign. Cllr Adam Juce and Cllr Steve Williams will represent the council on the newly-formed committee, which will promote the council, its residents, and business efforts to reduce the use of plastic, wherever possible.

But it was to applaud the community of Godalming on which councillors concentrated. Paying tribute to organisations including – the WI, Godalming Churches, etc, the council staff and numerous volunteers who had all responded to the Covid-19 Emergency.

The enviable achievement of setting up The Godalming & Villages Community Shop at the Wilfred Noyce Centre had been nothing short of a miracle. Everyone had come together in the shortest possible time frame to bring about the phenomenal success of the community initiative.

Council Leader Paul Follows said he had been “humbled’ by the response – saying it had made him proud to call Godalming home. Cllr Steve Cosser echoed those sentiments saying the flexibility and imagination shown by everyone in setting everything up in just a couple of weeks had been simply astounding.

Cllr Steve Williams said his Green Group was proud of the commitment shown by all his colleagues in responding to a situation nobody envisaged would ever happen. He said the grounds and cemetery staff had worked tirelessly dealing with more than 30 percent more burials in 10 days than in an average year.

The Clerk said that the council’s policy of having its own labour force, well-prepared to deal with all eventualities, had proved highly effective.

It was stressed, following comments made by Cllr Williams that local school headteachers had revealed numerous cases of hardship- that the Community Shop was open to everyone in Godalming and Villages – which includes, Bramley, Dunsfold; Hascombe Witley, Wormley Elstead and more.

Help was offered sensitively and confidence, in these difficult and unprecedented times. If you need it – use it as it is a benefit by the community for the community.

The council voted a further £2,000 towards the £2,000 already given in donations – and thanked all the individuals, businesses and organisations for showing how much Godalming Cares.

Posting on other issues raised at the meeting to be continued…




Come on Queen Victoria and Cllr Furniss – get a grip on Godalming? Before Godalming gets a grip on you at the 2021 May Polls.


Perhaps Surrey Council Highways Department should take a look at these pictures.  Particularly its Portfolio Holder – Matt Furniss and its Area Committee Chairman Queen Victoria aka Victoria Young?
Screen Shot 2020-04-29 at 20.52.36.png
Screen Shot 2020-04-29 at 20.53.13.png
The residents of Godalming are getting heartily sick! No, not this time of the Coronavirus – TBTG – but the shoddy workmanship of their highways and byways. Particularly in Godalming North!
There was a recent incident near Prime Place in Godalming (off Flambard Way) that has caused serious damage to the pedestrian crossing. (Photos 1 & 2).
Concerns have been raised to Surrey in the past (often via Queen Vic at the local committee regarding the traffic phasing relating to this crossing and nearby.  Many residents predicted an incident to be inevitable.
Perhaps someone out there should let the authorities know how it happened?
But what is baffling many, is the quality of repairs and the manpower it took to do them! Especially when money is frequently given as the reason why things cannot be done?

Photos 3 and 4 are of a recent set of repairs on South Hill. The Green section is the area that was patched, patching may be putting too fine a point on it as the quality is questionable!  But surely as shown in the red section it cannot be cost-efficient to send a crew out to repair one element and not the section next to it?

Or – was it a phased repair?

Screen Shot 2020-04-29 at 20.32.58.png

Highway staff in the yellow corner standing by just in case they are needed? WWeb heard for this particular repair there were 4 members of staff present during the repair and for the duration only 2 of them did anything. Is this standard practice for a small repair?

Oh! and just in case you think this is a first in Godalming. Take a look at this little photo gallery of SCC’s previous offerings to pavement and road safety.  
Come on Queen Victoria and Cllr Furniss – get a grip on Godalming? Before Godalming gets a grip on you at the 2021 May Polls.

Yet another example of shoddy workmanship.

Lies, damned lies and statistics?


Here at the Waverley Web we use data provided to us by the highly respected Health Service Journal (HSJ)

You will see the statistics below revealed two days ago (27 April). However, our only comment is:

How can any conclusion be reached about ‘peaks, flows, flattened or downward curves when deaths in the community in people’s homes, care homes and hospices are not included in the figures. If Scotland’s First Minister can do it – then why can’t we? Does this make a mockery of the so-called ‘scientific approach’ which looks at the data?

Also: There is a quite fascinating disconnect between peopl’s perception of the UK from inside and from outside the country. Whilst here coverage is mostly serious and calm, from our followers outiside the UK their perception of what is happening over here is very different. They are frightened and outraged by what is happening in the UK. Yesterday (a follower contacted us)  – Australia had 82 deaths, and anyone disobeying the strict rules during the height of the epidemic was fined $5,000 dollars. Now their beaches are open.

Yesterday it was announced that there have been 5,500 deaths in nursing homes.

P.S. at the bottom of the page.


The HSJ’s unique analysis shows the spread of hospital deaths confirmed as coronavirus cases to date, by trust and area, as well as the regional growth trends.

The deaths in English hospitals of a further 329 people who tested positive for coronavirus have been reported today (27 April). The cumulative total is now 18,749. This has now gone up yet further since.

The figures were collated between 5pm on 25 April and 5pm on 26 April, but due to the need to inform relatives and authenticate reports, many of the deaths occurred earlier than this period. It is also very likely that some deaths which did occur during these 24 hours — and before — have not yet been recorded, normally for the same reasons.

The delays to reporting mean the growth curve of deaths for recent days appears flatter than it actually is.

The figures do not include those who have died from the virus outside of hospital, which is an increasingly significant number, nor those where covid-19 has not been specifically recorded as a cause.

The running weekly total of confirmed hospital deaths continues to fall – it has dropped for 11 days successively up to 21 April, the most recent data point with robust data due to delays in reporting some deaths. The total has decreased by 28 per cent from the pandemic peak on 10 April.

Deaths and the number of people in hospitals in England continue to fall, though they are not dropping consistently across the country.

The seven day rolling average of total deaths has fallen faster in London compared with other regions, including the Midlands. The North West, however, is falling steeply after a rapid ascent, having peaked nearly a week after London.

The North East and Yorkshire appears set for a more gradual decline than the North West. The South East region is also showing a slower decline, while the East of England and the South West, as yet the least affected region, appear to have stalled.

Our other covid-19 data analysis includes: How coronavirus peaked and deaths by STP.


Our other covid-19 data analysis includes: How coronavirus peaked and deaths by STP.

P.S. The Government has told local councils – in our case Surrey County Council – to open up our recycling centres.

WW wonders how long tht will take?


Godawfulming becomes Godalmazing during this life-changing Coronavirus epedemic.


Do take a moment to watch the video on the link below – because it reveals the true spirit,  generosity and selflessness that exists in our town in the heart of the borough of Waverley.

How refreshing to hear that community spirit is alive and well in Godalming.

Our heartfelt thanks should be shouted from the roof tops for the partnership of the volunteer group and the town council that has achieved the Community Store now operating at the Wilfred Noyce Centre. 

For the moment memories of queuing traffic on Godalming’s congested roads exacerbated by the mounting number of developments, that prompted the solilioqy  ‘Godawfulming’ is fading.  The town now has a more tranquil feel, despite the food queues at the town’s supermarkets. Neighbours chatting to one another for the first time- with the opportunity to stop, watch Spring unfold and listen to the birdsong.  While we wait in a different kind of queue!


Shoppers queuing at a safe distance all around Sainsbury’s car park in Godalming.

Full marks to Godalming Town Council’s Chairman, who apologises in his message for the length of his hair. Some of our bloggers say they are distinctly envious of his lengthening locks and only wish their sparse thatch could follow Follows and show similar growth during the lock-down.

As the messenger says- don’t be shy – use the new Community Store – take what you need – tell your neighbours and friends to use it.   We are living in extraordinary and unprecedented times. For some it may be time to give. For others time to take.

Give and Take – isn’t that what life is all about?

P.S. We heard that hairdressers could be among the last to be un-locked from the lock-down – so heavens knows where Cllr Follows’ locks will be by Summer!?


Surrey Lib Dems call for our recycling centres to reopen.



Screen Shot 2020-04-27 at 10.39.31.pngScreen Shot 2020-04-27 at 10.46.05.png


The Lib Dem Group on Surrey County Council has called for the Council to reopen its Community Recycling Centres with social distancing measures to avoid fly-tipping.

This follows the latest advice from the Government that stated that Household Waste Recycling Centres can be open, but should have social distancing measures in place.

Lib Dem Councillors are concerned the closure of local tips has started to result in a spate of very unwelcome fly-tipping, and there are incidents all over Waverley. In one incident in our borough, the pile of fly-tipped rubbish included a dead dog!

Local authorities are focusing on household rubbish and food waste and regard the collection of garden waste and recycling as less of a priority. This coupled with Community Recycling Centres being closed and people being at home, so having time for gardening and housework, and DIY has resulted in an increase in fly-tipping.

Lib Dem Group Leader at County Hall, Councillor Chris Botten, said:

“I am calling on Surrey County Council to reopen our Community Recycling Centres in a limited and safe manner to enable gardeners to dispose of their plant material and also for householders, who may be using the time at home to catch up with domestic jobs, to safely dispose of waste.”

“The County Council has been listening to concerns so far and I hope for a partial reopening of our community tips in the near future.”

A Brilliant article from The Guildford Dragon which includes Care Homes in Waverley.


Lack of Testing For Those With No Symptoms Will Cost Lives, Says Care Homes Chief

by Hugh Coakley

The lack of Covid-19 testing for those without symptoms will cost lives says David Holmes, chair of the Surrey Care Association (SCA). But he added: “The social care system in Surrey is doing outstanding work.”

The Guildford area has 737 beds in 23 care homes a total higher than the Royal Surrey’s 720 beds. Seventeen of the homes are rated “Good” by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), one is “Outstanding” and five are “Requiring improvement”.

Mr Homes told The Guildford Dragon NEWS that collating the numbers of coronavirus deaths in the homes was difficult, confirming a BBC report. “I’m not sure if there are any statistics,” he said. “But anecdotally, my guess is that the coronavirus figures for Surrey will look favourable against other areas and that is down to the quality of care here.”

He said the lack of reliable statistics was partly caused by variation in the way doctors filled in the death certificate and in the timing of recording deaths.

“It would be good to have the statistics,” Mr Holmes added. “But that would have to be done through the CQC. [For me,] each day is full on sourcing PPE, managing the organisation and saving lives.”

He called the three- to four-day delay in Covid-19 test results “disappointing” and testing is still being restricted to only those with symptoms.

“If one member of staff has symptoms and they have been in contact with all the other staff members, you can’t send everyone home. You need to test everyone but it isn’t allowed, even though there is capacity at the Chessington and Gatwick testing stations.

“We are asking and being refused and it will be costing lives.”

And PPE is still a daily challenge. “I know of services which are down to their last knockings on masks and gowns,” he said.

“I have a strong view that the government was slow off the blocks. Clearly, they had to prioritise the NHS but they were too late recognising the needs of care homes. The penny finally dropped about a week ago.

“But this is not new; social care has been neglected for over 10 years. 2007 was the year that councils stopped giving inflation uplifts to care home payments and that has forced wages down. It is shocking and done quite explicitly by the government.

“Our society has underfunded social care. We expect people on a minimum wage to do a highly skilled and outstanding job.”

David thinks that the social care system will be the last to come out of lockdown. “We are just starting to discuss the future and it is raising flags,” he said.

“As soon as the lockdown is released, our staff are at the risk of increased contact and this will increase the risk to our residents.”

He is looking for a fundamental change but did not appear optimistic. “The change I would like to see is the creation of a national care service. NHS is national and social care is local. It just doesn’t work.

“The funding differs from county to county and Surrey doesn’t compare well. They are one of the most challenging to deal with, focusing on savings as opposed to the quality of the offering.”

Mr Holmes said he had to get back to work and added: “Social care does outstanding work in Surrey, supporting people incredibly well. I just hope this crisis will create a real change in the way we treat our workers.”


We know it’s tempting but please don’t light bonfires.


Screen Shot 2020-04-25 at 14.36.33.png

Burn Baby Burn When ya gonna learn to put out that fire?

The dumps- recycling centres – are shut – the rubbish is piling up, but …

Waverley Borough Council is appealing to residents to consider the “Five C’s” when it comes to getting rid of rubbish through the Coronavirus pandemic.

The annual garden Spring Clean will be on hold until…?

·    Consider: Do I need to create the waste at this point in time – or can it wait?

·    Cut back: Reduce the quantity of waste produced by the household – and re-use items that can be re-used

·  Compost: Start composting garden waste

·   Compact: Reduce the bulk – and store until more frequent collections return

·   Care: Think about your neighbours, the community, the bin collection teams and other key workers who are doing what they can to help people at this time

Steve WilliamsCouncillor Steve Williams, Waverley Borough Council Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, said:

“As with many councils across the UK, we have been working hard to try and keep bin collections running as normal during the Coronavirus pandemic. In light of government advice, Community Recycling Centres have had to temporarily shut, and we expect to see an impact on our services because of staff shortages; that’s why we are offering some advice on how to reduce waste and asking for residents’ help during these unprecedented times.”

The council has also asked residents to consider their neighbours and the wider community and to avoid burning waste.

Councillor Williams added:“Bonfires in back gardens can not only be anti-social but can have a very real impact on people with breathing problems which, of course, under current conditions, needs to be avoided at all costs. They can also present a fire risk which would draw on the already strained resources of the emergency services; garden waste can be composted, or you can store until normal service is resumed.”

Those persistently burning waste in their gardens can be liable to a fine of up to £5,000.

“We are asking people to please think of their neighbours and surrounding communities in these difficult times; if we each do our bit; we can pull through together.”

To keep up-to-date with the situation, you can visit http://waverley.gov.uk/bonfires or follow us @WaverleyBC on Twitter/Facebook/Instagram.  You can also see some useful information about composting at https://www.surreyep.org.uk/




Now its Farnham Town Council’s turn to be ignored by Waverley Planners?



Here’s our post on a so -called ‘Non Material Amendment’ (NMA) you know those little changes that developers fall back on every time they want to do what they  intended  at the planning application stage but didn’t want to make waves!  You know, like getting rid of the wildlife, trees, etc?

Waverley Planners could have a riot on its hands if it allows the removal of heritage trees developers claim could blight Blightwells

Now the Town Council has stepped into the fray.

The thorny issue of trees about to get the chop in Farnham’s Blightwells development is now capturing the attention of Farnham residents – and many others around the borough who have, or are about to suffer, the same fate. 

Although we have to mention that most developers ensure any problem trees that may get in their way are  felled BEFORE, they apply for planning permission!

Screen Shot 2020-04-21 at 20.27.59.png

Brightwell House post closure.jpg

Just a couple of little-old trees at Brightwells House in Farnham before developers arrived on the scene. But, don’t worry chaps – we’ll give them the heave-ho later so we can get a couple of extra shops in?

Oops! We just might have constructed our buildings a bit too close to the trees. Ah, well never mind, we always knew it would be a problem but a little old NMA will soon sort that out – won’t it?


Oops! We think the trees just may reach into the windows in a few year’s time? We might not be able to sell if there is a loss of light?


No wonder Crest Nicholson want to remove the trees – because as you can see it has built the buildings too damn close. Or, did they just grow like Topsy overnight when nobody was looking?

Waverley Planners could have a riot on its hands if it allows the removal of heritage trees developers claim could blight Blightwells.


Screen Shot 2020-04-21 at 21.31.05.png


Letters from angry residents are pouring onto ‘Your Waverley’s’ planning portal opposing a joint application by Crest Nicholson (CN) & Surrey County Council (SCC). 

The furious townsfolk of our beleaguered town are calling on Waverley councillors to – “stand up and be counted” to prevent three heritage trees facing the chop.

They are calling on councillors to throw out plans by  “unprofessional and deceitful” developers hellbent on destroying a part of Farnham’s heritage as they “wantonly attempt the destruction of anything that stands in the way of development”

The duo of CN and SCC wants to remove three mature trees near Brightwells House in East Street. 

Here’s one – other pictures will follow tomorrow.


Here today – gone tomorrow? 

The pair have put in an (NMA) a ‘non-material amendment’ to their planning application to vary Condition 20 to remove a further three trees – one of which is a memorial to Farnham resident Mr R Bide.

A Copper beech – a Cedar – and a London Plane Tree – all face the chain saw axe if the dynamic Duo get their evil way. Because, the reason given for the trees removal, all factored into the original development scheme – in their words not ours…

Tree No 30no doubt better to give it a number than a name?

‘Will not adjust to the changes around it and will become a maintenance concern and that tree 31 is of a species that is fragile.’

WW: Of course it is fragile – because the development made it so!

And – wait for it – yes you guessed

‘Why trees 30 and 31 should be slashed and burned?  `No 32 – will be incongruous in the new setting inhibiting a suitable landscape for the future.”

FUTURE?    Exactly what future does Blightwells have as a retail and restaurant hub may we ask?

But fear not the developer duo (DD) has all the answers.

 In their words.

Tree 31 – Cedar

 ‘Is of compromised form now that the adjoining horse chestnut has been removed. It is a typical Cedar with long lateral branches. These branches are highly prone to failure, especially in summer months. Failure in their proposed setting could result in harm to people and property.’


The developer is…  ‘rightly mindful that placing people and property at harm from trees should be avoided if possible, especially when the risks are well known as in this case. 

Consideration was given to crown reduction of the tree however that only leads to onerous maintenance over the coming decades. Again, replacement of the tree was thought to be the most prudent course of action. It removes the risk of failure but secures long term tree cover in this important landscape feature.

Its replacement will permit the extension of the proposed avenue of small-leaved lime trees to provide a complete avenue feature within the central gardens. These trees will be planted at a semi-mature size of 40-45cm girth and will make a significant contribution to the landscape.

As for Tree 32 the London Plane?

– well that can face the chop because lots of them are dying from the dreadful Massaria disease – so one more won’t hurt – will it? And its replacement...Their words:


“Its replacement will also permit the extension of the proposed avenue of small-leaved lime trees to provide a complete avenue feature within the central gardens. These trees will be planted at a semi-mature size of 40-45cm girth and will make a significant contribution to the landscape.”

Screen Shot 2020-04-21 at 22.22.08.pngWell – we have news for you DD’s – Farnham will not sit idly by and watch you take over our town and turn it into a disaster area.  You may have  ‘Gone too far this time Sir Percy.’   Because enough is enough – and this picture sums up what we all think of your Bum idea.


Just one objection taken from the reams on-line  David Howells.OBJECTION to NMA/2020/0045: Brightwells, Land centred East Street, Farnham
Amendment to WA/2016/0268 for amending the wording of Condition 20.

We strongly object to the content of this application to fell these three trees, and to the use of an NMA as the means of achieving this end. The three trees are an intrinsic part of the historic appearance of Brightwell House and are much-loved by Farnham residents. The Condition requiring their retention was set for a good reason.

The main explicit argument put forward by the applicants appears to be a concern with safety because of the species of tree involved. But the trees have not changed species since 2016 when planning permission was granted including Condition 20.

Any potential problem should have been foreseen by the applicants back then. The Council’s Tree Officer clearly considered the position and condition of the trees as not being threatened or posing a risk. This application includes no proper assessment of the current state of the trees, far less detail than a householder wishing to cut back a protected tree would have to submit to gain approval.
Trying to use an NMA to amend Condition 20, implies, by definition, that the presence of the trees is not impeding the progress of the scheme in a material way, and that their removal would not affect the realisation of the final scheme. The latter implication is clearly not the case: the removal of the trees would greatly change the appearance of Brightwell House and its setting. If the trees are considered to be affecting some aspect of construction, a full planning application to change that aspect should be submitted.