Cranleigh townsfolk have awarded NIL POINT to their so-called leaders for lending their support to a ginormous Nursing Home on land the Parish once owned!

But 10/10 goes to parish councillors ANGELA RICHARDSON and JAMES BETTS (Cranleigh’s very own Angela Merkel and All-Betts-Are-Off) for speaking out vociferously against a scheme to build a £30-40 million private nursing home and then … wait for it … wait for it … drum roll: ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE!

What a cop out!

SHAME ON THEM! Weren’t they elected to do their best for the residents and businesses of the Cranleigh Parish? Or perhaps they weren’t actually elected?  However, – like the rest of the Tory Tossers at this particular point in time – the Cranleigh and Ewhurst duo are only interested in doing what’s best for themselves.

They’re sitting on the fence because they want the local voting fodder to support their bid to represent them when they stand as Conservative candidates for the hotly-contested Waverley Borough Council seats in May’s elections. But, on this performance, they’ve as much chance of that happening as turkeys voting for Christmas!

For those who haven’t been following the Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the Hospital-word!) debacle over there in the East of the borough, it’s the one where local residents, schools, businesses and other organisations worked their socks off fundraising for a new village hospital only to discover that the millions they raised weren’t going towards providing the promised VILLAGE HOSPITAL/Day Hospital but had been diverted to fund a PRIVATELY OWNED NURSING HOME with a mere 20 out 80 beds being made available for local and not so local people!

In other words, the residents of Cranleigh and the surrounding villages did all the heavy-lifting in terms of fundraising and then the Trustees of the – in name only – Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust, did the dirty on them by selling out to HC-One, a multi-million pound PRIVATE CARE HOME FACILITY!


And it that wasn’t bad enough, it’s now been revealed that Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the H-word!) Trust duped the Parish Council into parting with parish-owned land for a measly £1! Yep, that’s right, a valuable site that belonged to the residents of Cranleigh was sold for a mere £1 plus a land swap!!!

Almost 20 years ago – Parish Councillors were led to believe it was a good deal, in the public interest, because in return, they were told the land would become the home of a new all-singing-all-dancing Cranleigh Village Hospital + a Day Hospital!

The land swap in question is surrounded by a ransom strip and included planning conditions stipulating that essential road improvement and traffic calming measures must be employed.  These measures were considered absolutely essential because Knowle Lane – like it says on the can – is a narrow country lane with no footpaths and a business called Kerbside operates a hop, skip and a car away from the junction onto Cranleigh High Street, changing tyres at the kerbside. Something that frequently causes utter chaos at busy times of the day!

As is so often the case – and, no doubt many were counting on – Waverley’s planning numpties didn’t bother to enforce any of the above mentioned essential planning conditions and now the residents and businesses of Cranleigh have the worst of all possible worlds:

However, in his infinite wisdom, Chairman of the Parish Council, the late unlamented Brian Ellis, took it upon himself with help from Richard Cole and a CVHTrustee to grant access over Parish owned land to Snoxhall fields to provide a very VALUABLE-TO-DEVELOPER access to 28 rabbit hutches for NHS workers! For – yes you guessed ZILCH!

Q: Why

Does a private nursing home need to provide homes for NHS workers?  When right next door the Berkeley Bunnies are building 425-homes which includes a percentage of affordable homes just a hop, skip and a jump away from the private nursing home?

 Why can’t 28 of the Berkeley Bunnies’ affordable hutches be earmarked for NHS workers?


• No new Village Hospital
• A privately owned nursing home in its place on a site that was acquired from the village for the princely sum of £1! And and a Right of Way for zilch.
• No essential road improvements
• 425 houses accessing onto the very narrow and pavement-less Knowle Lane
• 28 more homes adjacent to and associated with the privately owned nursing home

You couldn’t make it up! Seriously you couldn’t!

Meanwhile, the Trustees of Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the H-word!) Trust is spinning a web of ever-increasing bunkum to Cranleigh’s planning committee about all the so-called benefits to so-called “local” people” about HC-One’s amazing new 60-bed private hotel-in-all-but-name!

To add insult to injury, not to mention rubbing salt into the wound (no pun intended), they’ve omitted to mention the cherry on the icing on HC-One’s cake: their multi-millionaire owner has just sold out to Australian Pension giant AMP!

AMP swooped in and snapped up the Care Management Group, a chain of 90 care homes with 2,000 patients, from turnaround specialist Court Cavendish which also owns – you guessed it! – HC-ONE, for a stonking £200 MILLION!

Owner of HC-ONE, multi-millionaire, Mr Chai Patel says investing in the care home sector can still be a winner, despite social care providers continuing to suffer from uncertainty over funding following a decade of austerity.

Screen Shot 2018-10-08 at 20.01.27

Swapping your tea for Moet Mr Patel?

“You can have an investment in this sector and continue to do well both for residents and colleagues as well as investors.”

Well, of course you can, Mr Patel, when you have land that was sold for £1 handed to you on a plate – complete with a garnish of rabbit-hutches, otherwise known as residential development – by the townsfolk of Cranleigh, and then you sell it on – without even breaking a sweat, let alone ground! – to another provider for a stonking great profit!

So, Cranleigh voting fodder, remember that it was the abstentions by ANGELA RICHARDSON AND JAMES BETTS – two politically ambitious Cranleigh councillors – who allowed planning committee stand-in chairman Richard Cole to use his casting vote to permit Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the H-word) Trust to use money raised under false pretences by the people of the parish to wave through a privately owned nursing home by a wealthy Australian Pensions giant!

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 21.11.11.png

Angela((I want to go to WestminsterRichardson)


Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 21.11.20.png

James Betts.

Screen Shot 2018-12-11 at 21.15.13.png

Richard Cole. 

When you go to the ballot box in May you need to remember that it was ANGELA  and MICHAEL who didn’t put their votes where their mouths were. Which begs the  BIG questions about whether or not they can be trusted to do the right thing by Cranleigh residents or, as they demonstrated last night, will they only ever think about doing the right thing for themselves and their political ambitions?

In these difficult times, Cranleigh needs true statesmen-like leaders, not these politically-minded pygmies!

Will a move from County Towers help deal​ with Waverley’s rubbish?



Is County Towers transferring its recycling problems onto Waverley Towers?

The new leader of Surrey County Council has announced plans to leave County Hall in Kingston-Upon-Thames.

Perhaps Tim Oliver could use the money he is saving to keep our recycling facilities going in Farnham?

 When Waverley Council recently considered the county council’s proposed closure of two recycling centres – in Farnham and  Cranleigh, they argued they could get stuck with the county’s problems. Because residents already faced with shorter opening hours have started dumping their stuff into Waverley’s “Bring Bins,” in the boroughs car parks! Resulting in shifting the cash-strapped county’s problems onto cash-strapped Waverley!

Tim Oliver, a Conservative councillor for Weybridge, was elected recently to lead the county council, taking over from David Hodge who stepped down from the role after seven years.

During his acceptance speech, Mr Oliver said:For too long the emotional connection to a community has been taken for granted. He was referring to Kingston-Upon-Thames which is an outer London borough.

“For 50 years we have not been close enough to the residents we serve, and we all represent. I have therefore asked the officers to start the detailed planning for the relocation of the people in this building back into the county of Surrey.”

He hopes the authority will leave the Kingston HQ by 2020.

 WW predicts this will produce a shedload of money for the authority when the site is sold for housing? So why not use some of that money to properly fund Waverley’s existing recycling centres? Its children’s centres and more?

If Farnham loses its recycling centre, and the land is sold for housing, where will Biffa, Waverley’s newly appointed contractor, go? Neighbouring Authorities including – Hampshire and West Sussex are already putting measures in place to stop Surrey residents crossing the borders. Number-plate recognition has been installed in Hampshire and WSCC is asking for people to produce a driving licence.

The Farnham Herald’s ‘Don’t Dump the Dump’ campaign now has cross-party support – have you signed the petition?http://www.farnhamherald.com/article.cfm?id=131619&headline=Councillors%20join%20fight%20to%20keep%20tip%20open&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2018

Natalie Bramhall, the county councillor for Redhill West and Meadvale, has been appointed a deputy cabinet member tasked with finding the council a new home. 

Perhaps, if the decision is made to close Farnham’s Recycling centre – it could provide a new home for County Towers?


“Has Milford Golf Course sold developers a Bogey?”


Now all hell’s breaking out in Milford – as claims over a covenant gather pace.

 A battle royal between residents, Waverley Planners and developers – over a scheme to build 200 homes on Milford Golf Course is about to tee off.

Is yet another development accessing off a narrow country road about to happen? But, then there’s a lot of that about – ask the people of Cranleigh the eastern villages of Alfold, and Ewhurst? Because they are currently playing dodgems with HGV’s and increased traffic,  just as they are in Milford. 

. Quite startling allegations that the developers Crown Golf and then Stretton Milford Ltd lied to Waverley to remove the Golf Club from the Green Belt in 2016. They strenuously argued the site was ‘deliverable’ when clearly there was a covenant on it. And then subsequently took out insurance against not removing the covenant!

Neighbours, Mr & Mrs House have clearly paid for a lorry load of consultants to draw together this huge list of objections. Quite an impressive document, you can download here.

 Mr & Mrs House’s consultants have highlighted the effect of the floodplain on the developers’ mitigation SANG (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) area.  As usual, Natural England is obviously quite happy to see dog walkers up to their necks in floodwater from the River Ock as they negotiate the SANG? – That’s the area carved out of the site to mitigate for building near the rare Wealden Heaths. That space is also split into two by the busy Station Road – access to Milford Station, the constantly expanding Tuesley Fruit Farm – let alone a shedload of a new housing at Milford Hospital. So public safety goes by the board… yet again! WW asks? Is Natural England actually reviewing anything properly?

When are the Planners going to take into account the quality of life of its residents? When will Surrey County Council highway engineers start doing their job?

Here are just a few of the local objections.

  • the development will lead to serious congestion on Station Lane/Church Lane and Church Lane/A3100 Portsmouth Road and will pose a danger to pedestrians and cyclists;
  • the development will be overcrowded because the land available for building is severely constrained by flood risk and the need for SANG;
  • the Site, the River Ock, and Station Lane are all liable to flooding. Stretton Milford Limited has not adequately evaluated the run-off and flood risk resulting in the Surrey County Council (the Lead FloodAuthority) recommending refusal of the application;
  • the Site cannot provide SANG that complies with relevant guidance;
  • the development will invade natural countryside and unnecessarily break the natural boundary to the village of Milford that the River Ock has always provided;
  • the development does not comply with the conditions set out in LPP1 when the Site was allocated as a strategic site suitable for large-scale development;
  • the proposed development will overlook and overshadow our own property;
  • since there is a legal right to prevent this development, which we intend to enforce, it is a costly and flawed strategy for Waverley Borough Council to depend on this development on the Site to fulfil a material part of its unmet housing need;
  • it is premature for Waverley Borough Council to grant planning permission for a large-scale development on the Site since it has not completed the preparation of Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) which will provide a proper opportunity (if carried out objectively) to reflect on the availability of other more suitable and better-supported sites for large-scale development; and
  • the scale of the requirement for housing in Waverley Borough Council is in a state of flux and it would be inappropriate to permit large-scale development now on an unsuitable site when doing so will breach the historic natural boundary of the village at the River Ock and permanently destroy former Green Belt land.

This isn’t the River Ock it’s a road.

By the way – that’s the road – not the river!

Breath in! Don’t worry the pedestrians will jump into the hedges – or get killed?



Just when you thought the Cranleigh Village (Don’t mention the H-word) Trust debacle couldn’t get any worse, enter stage left Batty Bamford. Again!!

Batty – has latent ambitions, we’re told, to step into the shoes of the late, unlamented Life of Brian, former Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council.

Bully-Boy-Brian didn’t believe in democracy and whilst, give him his due, he chaired parish council meetings, all the important decisions were made behind closed doors, with a chosen few, including wife of Brian. They were duped into accepting a land swap for a football field with a Ransome strip surrounding it? Embarked upon some extremely dubious shenanigans to provide an access along the Snoxhall Fields access road – and supported use of former parish land to allow A2Dominion to build residential flats there. But even they didn’t know that an A2D director was a CVHT Trustee? From the information spewing into us from a host of people, including former councillors, we could go on, and on…

But then we will leave it to (Don’t mention the H word) who are busy running ragged trying to convince everyone in and around Cranleigh New Town there really is something in it for them. There are two meetings tonight! One at the Civic Society another at Snox Hall where the parish council consider the scheme – on land it once owned and swapped for a replacement HOSPITAL.


Apparently, according to the Mutter on the street new bully-on-the-block Bamford is incandescent with the Waverley Web because we have … wait for it, …wait for it … Drum roll because It’s a biggy:

We have dared to TELL THE TRUTH!!!

Because if you don’t – someone will tell it for you.


Yes, there you have it, folks, the Waverley Web has dared to reveal the little secret that the Cranleigh Village (Don’t mention the H-word) Trust is desperate to conceal: that it isn’t what it says on the can!

Instead, the promised new village hospital that Cranleigh residents, businesses, schools and other organisations fund-raised so hard for is DEAD and, in its place, the Trustees have cobbled together a deal with a multibillionaire  owned private sector company HC-ONE to build a private nursing home, with none of the usual services associated with a cottage hospital and a mere 20 out of a total of 80 beds provided free for residents of the borough rather than the Cranleigh residents who did all the heavy-lifting in relation to the fundraising.

According to embattled and berated Cranleigh residents and businesses – who wish to remain nameless for fear of reprisals – new BOTB Bamford considers himself to be the public face of Cranleigh. Never mind the views of the democratically elected Parish Council, in his capacity as Vice-Chair of Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce, new BOTB   wants to speak for all of Cranleigh – or at least all those that he thinks matters! 

What is it about some people that the minute they assume a semi-public role – even in a tiny pond like Cranleigh – that makes them think they morph overnight into sagacious men of business and statesmen of the village? And why do they think they can completely disregard and sweep into the gutter the aspirations and views of the many thousands of residents who believed in and fund-raised for a new village hospital – not only in name but in deed?

The answer, in part, is that power corrupts – even in tiny doses, which is all new BOTB  currently has. But can you imagine what a jumped-up popinjay he’s set to become if ever he reaches the giddy heights of Chairman of the Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce? May God preserve us if the Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce doesn’t!

Sadly,  he has convinced himself that he’s the only person with the wit and ingenuity to decide when a village hospital is a village hospital – or not as is the case here – and if anyone disagrees with him woe betide them – or so we’re told – more of which below.

We at the Waverley Web are shaking in our bunker because, we’re told, despite a 14.4% rise in crime in Surrey for the period 2017/18, with an astonishing 72,800 incidents reported during the period, Peanut wants the police to investigate us!

Yep, folks, you did read that right. According to our Cranleigh followers, BB is running around Cranleigh streets telling anyone who will listen that he wants the police to waste their very limited and valuable resources investigating and exposing the contributors to the Waverley Web, instead of concentrating on the more pressing issues of an 8.4% rise in burglaries in the county, incidents of domestic violence, rape and vehicle-related crimes.

Our crime? Apparently, we’re guilty of upsetting him and his village-wide view. Now, of course, we understand that the police are required to protect and support minorities, but, seriously, does he  really think being one of the few people in Cranleigh to support the debacle that the Cranleigh Village (don’t mention the H-word) Trust has become is really what being a member of a minority group is all about?!

Whilst BB ponders that complex problem, we await the dawn raid and have a working title of Truncheons at Dawn for the ensuing article 


Bamford rides again?


Our followers over there in the New Town are filling our inboxes with stuff about crime, vandalism, flooding, overdevelopment on its countryside, HGV’s thundering through their High Street and more… including, loss of recycling… In fact, we could write a book, not a blog!

 We here at the Waverley Web are being constantly bombarded with all things Cranleigh and the Eastern villages – and we wonder why?

 Over here in Farnham we are, about to lose our recycling facilities too – and our post office! Yours may be next?

Now another Charity Shop is moving into Cranleigh – this time its the Cats Protection League and according to our followers over there, it has had a nice new shiny newly-built shop tailor-made for them! 

The Deputy – no doubt soon to be Chairman, of the Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce, is asking the townsfolk what they think about the newcomer. Well, it’s been raining cats and dogs for weeks, but perhaps he doesn’t like cats? Perhaps the locals are becaming too vocal, because by the time the WW logged on the post had been removed by The Controller.

Cats Protection League - is the latest retailer to join Cranleigh Street.

Martin Bamford
Admin · Yesterday at 10:35
Brand new shop unit built and we get…another charity shop. Thoughts?

Beckie Weeks Someone asked what the people of Cranleigh would like to see in the village rather than another charity shop. Although I agree Cranleigh is a village which compliments shops such as Manns and Cromwell’s there are people in the village who sometimes can’t afford to shop there regularly. Maybe giving the option of a small version of pound land, savers, Wilkinsons perhaps would be good to extend the shopping range to all of Cranleigh and keeping people shopping in the village rather than travelling to nearby towns…and what they save in bus fare could then be spent on a cuppa at Cromwell or treat in Manns!!! Cranleigh is now diversifying in the range of people living here so maybe the shops could reflect that??? 😊

Peter Stanford Beckie Weeks I agree, affordability is the key both for the shop owners and the customers, but how to attract the shops is a big question.
I would add to your list Aldi, shopping that is affordable but still retains quality.
The people of Burpham didn’…

Beckie Weeks Peter Stanford also would be good but would they put it in Cranleigh with 3 supermarkets already!!! It would be awesome though!!! But yes if the shops were there to please all sorts of customers we could retain village life. People have said maybe it’s rent of shop units being so high..so maybe bring the rent down per month but write a longer lease in the contract so the shops pay less but are here to stay for longer periods of time????

Hannah Nicholson Martin Bamford is this really necessary on this page when you actually posted about this already?

Hannah Nicholson Grow up eh, you are like a child behaving like the class clown to attention seek and thinking you’re funny. It’s pathetic. Anyone looking at this ‘community board’ and thinking of moving here for a nice community would drive the other way.

Presumably written by BB?

You know what! There are some residents who wanted more homes to provide more footfall for the shops. And, do you know which towns are benefitting from the townsfolk of Cranleigh?  Godalming and Horsham! So much so, that its High Street is thriving – and a new Lidl is about to be built near its station. So perhaps you have to be careful what you wish for?

What is going wrong with our Ambulance Services?


Screen Shot 2018-12-01 at 12.36.26.png

Screen Shot 2018-12-01 at 12.36.36.png

Our ambulance service has been placed into special measures by the health inspectorate after receiving the lowest-possible rating of ‘inadequate.’

The CQC inspected SSG UK Specialist Ambulance Service South – which provides emergency and urgent care and patient transport in the south-east. these are commissioned by local NHS trusts. The inspection took place after  – in response to concerns raised over its medicines, staffing, and overall management.

The service was rated ‘inadequate’ in all aspects – including safety, effectiveness, and being well-led – apart from responsiveness and quality of care, the former rated as ‘requires improvement’ while the latter did not have sufficient evidence to provide a rating.

The health inspectorate identified a number of issues. These included, the unsafe management of medicines; incidents in which patients health or well-being were not properly reported; and national practice guidelines were not followed when transferring mental health patients, where risk assessments were not carried out.

 No evidence was shown that paramedics and technicians had completed the appropriate training and competency to administer medicines safely. Neither had all staff completed the relevant training to competently fulfil their role.

There were also issues with the service’s recruitment process as records and check of staff fitness were either unavailable or incomplete.

CQC deputy chief inspector of hospitals, Dr Nigel Acheson, said: “We are all well aware that our ambulance services are under a tremendous amount of pressure and scrutiny. However, when we inspected the SSG UK Specialist Ambulance Service South recently, we were extremely concerned at the disconnect we identified between the senior team and the staff working on the frontline. We saw no sign of a clear vision and strategy and a lack of response to the concerns we had previously raised.

“The vision for the trust was not clearly articulated by the senior team and staff. The local managers provided us with different visions for the future but not how these plans would come into action, which did not assure us that the teams were working cohesively.”

The southeast ambulance service will be inspected again in six months’ time.

Chocs away for the Wings Museum – unless it joins Dunsfold Park’s tribute to the past?


An application to build Dunsfold Airfield Mark 2 – on land adjacent to Dunsfold Airfield Mark 1 – was flatly REFUSED – by Waverley Planners – who deemed it too big, in fact, claiming it was better suited to either Heathrow or Gatwick!

It beggars belief why Waverley’s head honcho led her planning numpties into recommending approval of a scheme to build an aviation museum councillors described as “bizarre;” “massive;” “huge;” “enormous” hangars more fitting for Heathrow or Gatwick.

Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 20.04.22.png
Screen Shot 2018-12-05 at 19.58.47.png

The land adjacent to Dunsfold Park has been purchased by the West-Sussex based Wing Museum Trust from a local landowner, who no doubt, wanted to put two fingers up to the Flying Scot because the laddie has permission to build a Museum and 1,800 new homes on the airfield site adjacent? That land is marked in blue on the map above.

One councillor after another – even an absent Alfold Borough councillor Kevin Deanus, slammed the plan to build on land east of Benbow Lane off Dunsfold Road. A rural road Alfold Parish Council Chairman Nick Pigeon described as – in a bad state of repair.
However, a Wings Spokesman said the Museum, attracting 28,000 visitors to view the planes in a proposed 10,000 sqm hangar would be good for the borough’s economy, -with classrooms and library for education, a shop, library; coach and car parks, and a dedicated section dealing with Dunsfold Aerodrome’s history would be a huge asset.

It was financially sound with money to forge ahead with the exciting scheme on land it owned and to include an adjacent nature reserve, where the remains of WW2 buildings still stand.
The scheme was “unique” and would be a successful asset to the area.
Objector Chris Britton – or (Little Britton as he is known locally) said the scheme raised some serious issues – as the applicant had no relationship with Dunsfold Park. What if this multi-million-pound Museum failed in this rural area on agricultural land, which, he claimed, had never been within the airfield boundary and if allowed it would set a dangerous precedent for other similar areas around the new settlement.
“This proposed hangar could accommodate 342 double-decker buses or even Concorde and is eight times bigger than the existing Wings Museum.”
Several councillors claimed the access would be far too close to an existing DP access, and why hadn’t SCC highways objected?

The WW asks  – is this outfit (SCC highways) any longer fit for purpose?

Why wasn’t it part of the Dunsfold Masterplan councillors asked? Why wasn’t the applicant talking to Dunsfold Park? Why? were officers recommending approval when the whole idea of the DP Masterplan was to plan – future development – and which included a new Aviation Museum?
“This is bizarre,” claimed Mary Foryszewski – “we could end up with two Museums.”
In a letter read out by Councillor John Gray, Kevin Deanus claimed the size of the building – was so large “it will make Gatwick and Heathrow jealous. And to claim it was part of the airfield, and within touching distance of proposed new homes was stretching credibility too far.”
Any access to any future Museum should be off the A281.
For once, Betty Boot rolled back from her usual stance of kicking councillors into submission? She actually became more accommodating – perhaps now she is retiring, she is beginning to feel some remorse for the mess she has helped get the East of the borough into?
Has anyone told BB about the Dunsfold Masterplan? That a Museum already exists and described by Bramley’s By-Pass Byham as – ramshackle, dilapidated buildings manned by a few volunteers – is to be replaced? It’s in the Masterplan ducky!

Calling out to the public gallery BBPB said to another Betty Sorry Betty (we know not who Betty is – but I shall be supporting this application.”
No doubt quite forgetting his usual concern for the heavy traffic which he would like to By-Pass Bramley? But then what’s another 28,000 visitors’ cars between friends?
Councillor Mike band described the scheme – as an “extraordinary place to consider putting an enormous Museum. “Wrong place, wrong size, without the right partners!”
Although some councillors suggested deferral, others wanted an outright rejection and it was REFUSED by 11 votes to By-Pass’s One.


Farnham’s Redgrave to bite the dust.


Tis the Season to be Jolly? Isn’t it?

Screen Shot 2018-12-04 at 17.33.32.png

Third time lucky ‘Your Waverley” seeks and it finds listed building consent to reduce Farnham’s last link with the Redgrave dynasty to a pile of rubble. And – what better time to do the dreaded deed  – during the Christmas Pantomime Season! 

This is a rallying call to the residents of the borough of Waverley. Never let it be said that we here at the WW are only concerned with all things Farnham.

But this plea goes out to everyone in Waverley who cares about their heritage. To-day Farnham – tomorrow Godalming – Haslemere – or over there in the Eastern villages. One day it could be you?

Nothing anyone now says or does will change the sad fact that Farnham is about to lose its treasured Redgrave Theatre. Sir Michael Redgrave- for many years, a teacher at a Waverley fee-paying school would surely have been heartbroken to watch the bulldozers trashing a theatre bearing his famous family name. But the deed is done and the Philistines at ‘Your Waverley’ would rather see a load more empty shops, restaurants, and “so-called affordable homes” on the Blightwells site. And – who knows it may prove to be a huge asset to the Farnham coffee-culture scene drawing in the Wombles of Wimbledon and the Wandsworth wanderers. Who are we to judge?

But here’s an open letter to those of us who treasured Farnham’s past and fear for its future. So, if you care about our theatre – at least let the decision-makers know how you regret its demise and make some reparation for ensuring its loss. Because as sure as hell – one day someone will ask WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?

Dear Farnham Theatre Association Colleagues,

The Redgrave Theatre is due to be knocked down over a number of days between December 10th and March 4th next year, having served as a beacon and a rallying call since it closed in 1998.

To a group of keen theatre supporters, it seems fitting that those who gained so much from it should have the chance to mark its passing publicly and appropriately.

By agreement with the Farnham Herald, a number of letters are planned from different groups each carrying multiple signatures.

The plan is to send these into the Herald, to be published over 2/3 weeks as soon as the Redgrave goes down. Life is too short to alter or amend the shared letter from FTA on individual request, so if you would prefer to send in your own personal response, that would be more than welcome, particularly if it follows the opening salvo. It would help to convey the sense of public outrage if correspondence continued for some weeks and the debate opened up. Chances of publication will be greater with group letters.

If you would like your name added to the FTA letter (see below), could you email your consent to Anne Cooper on anne.cooper@farnhamtheatre.org.uk The Herald accepts it is impracticable to collect so many signatures individually, so asks that each typed name it receives is accompanied by a contact email address to confirm authenticity; however these latter details will not be published.

Thank you 

Anne Cooper

(Letter to Farnham Herald from FTA Members and friends)

Dear Sir,

The demolition of the Redgrave Theatre causes immense distress to those who regarded Farnham’s two theatres as beacons of culture for over fifty years. However, the demolition will give some satisfaction to those who rate commerce to be more important than the arts. Paradoxically, Waverley has spent millions on pursuing a development scheme which promises little return, while the condemned theatre was built economically and sustainably for the long-term. Because the theatre was designed for low-cost maintenance, it was never praised for its external appearance, but rather for the work that went on inside that simple, functional auditorium.
Destroying part of Farnham’s heritage is a divisive act, particularly when uneconomic shops and restaurants are to replace the theatre which was once the cultural heart of the town. This destruction has, at the same time, damaged part of what made Farnham special: a cohesive spirit of community creativity. After the Second World War, the people of Farnham supported and encouraged the fledgeling Castle Theatre, to such an extent that the larger Redgrave Theatre was built with money raised largely by public subscription. This became a theatre renowned and respected nationally for the quality of its productions. At the same time, Farnham people had rescued and developed the derelict Malting buildings and this is now a flourishing Arts Centre. The town had created and supported both venues. However, when times grew hard, our local authority took the controversial decision to support only one and it was Farnham Maltings that was to survive. It was believed that theatre at the Maltings would replace The Redgrave, but this proved to be a naive and unrealistic expectation.

Our local authorities have a responsibility now to mend the cultural damage they have inflicted on the town. We respectfully ask Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council for reparation for the loss of The Redgrave Theatre. We ask for a commitment to demand contributions from developers towards providing a well-equipped replacement theatre/concert hall to serve future expanding populations. This should be a priority for the well-being, not only of Farnham but the whole community of Waverley and beyond.
Yours faithfully,

Anne Cooper, Farnham Theatre Association Chairman

Background: A conditional contract to create a major retail and residential district was awarded to developers Crest Nicholson and Sainsbury’s in 2003. It has now begun. The theatre building is attached to the grade II-listed Brightwell House. 

The plans come 20 years after the Redgrave Theatre was closed by Waverley Borough Council. It will be knocked down and the adjacent Brightwell House will be converted to form two restaurants.

 When the council approved an application for listed building consent to demolish the building it attracted  260 objections and five votes of support from neighbours and consultees.

Among the objectors was the Theatres Trust. It opposed on the grounds the plans do not offer a replacement cultural facility or a financial contribution to support an existing facility.


Mea Culpa -wrong spokesman?


We are reliably informed by a Cranleigh follower that Mother of Bamford has called for a correction on the Cranleigh Community Board claiming that her son is not the spokesman for the Cranleigh Village Nursing Home Trust. 

Grovel, grovel, and apologies to Mrs Bamford for inadvertently referring to her son as such. But we were reliably informed that he is considered to be the spokesman as he is all over the eastern villages like a rash of spots, speaking up for said Cranleigh’s new nursing home – never to be referred to as… a HOSPITAL.

We also understand he is stomping around Cranleigh New Town complaining about anyone that posts anything he doesn’t agree with on the Cranleigh Community Board.

So we are issuing a health warning to anyone over there in the Eastern villages remotely inclined to share our posts – please DON’T – without asking Mr or Mrs Bamford for permission first.




Don’t mention the word. ‘HOSPITAL!’

Don’t​ mention the word. ‘HOSPITAL!’


Particularly if you dare to share this post on The Cranleigh Community Board!

Because according to e-mails we have received from followers over there in the East – the Cranleigh Mafia is at work. ‘The Chef’ aka  Martin Bamford (he has so many fingers in so many pies) has removed this post shared by his members on the board he now owns and censors. No Gipsies and No Private Nursing Home speak?

Why we wonder? Is this a little too close to the truth?

We have also heard that the Cranleigh Parish Council will be considering The Giant Nursing Home scheme at its planning meeting next Monday.


The words – “Hospital” must not be used!!

This is the plan for a £30/40m Private Nursing Home together with residential accommodation being put forward by A2 Dominion Director “Mr Cranleahy”and HC-One  –  as a replacement for “dare we, dare we, say it? … Cranleigh Hospital. Dammit, now we have!


In a nutshell,  we’re told – on good authority.  The people of Cranleigh and the nearby, villages were asked to raid their piggy banks and dig deep into their pockets to replace  – Cranleigh Cottage Hospital axed by the health authority.  And… they did… raising millions.

But now, we’ve been inundated by complaints and questions from local people who ran fundraising events – local schools, pubs, clubs and individuals – you name it, they raised it.

Now that dream has turned sour and instead of living the dream local people find themselves living  – Nightmare on Knowle Lane.

The trouble began, we understand, when “big boy” developers, such as A2 Dominion and HC-One, got involved and the scheme morphed from a new local hospital with beds for local people into something so far removed from this original concept, even the founding trustees don’t recognise it!

Angry residents tell us their questions go unanswered by Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust (CVHT) – the original organisation set up to promote the concept of local beds for local people, free at the point of demand.

We at the Waverley Web are not entirely au fait with the scheme – which has been in the pipeline since before we were even a germ of an idea – but our Cranleigh followers have been on the case, trying to winkle out some answers and this is how they faired.

• It is an 80-bed care home – it is NOT a hospital!
• It will NOT have a minor injuries unit – X-Ray, MRI or outpatients. These services will be provided by the official Cranleigh Village Hospital, operated by its Cranleigh League of Friends. We have ascertained this organisation has no link whatsoever with the CVHT Charity. Neither does it attend its meetings or have any inclination to do so.
• There will be 20 beds for community care – managed under a joint budget operated by the Guildford & Waverley Commissioning Care Group( G&WCCG) and Surrey County Council Adult Social Care (SCC).
• These beds will replace some,  (20) but not all, of the 60 beds lost when Surrey County Council closed its Longfields Home some years ago – a site now earmarked for 25 homes! Clearly a win-win for SCC but not for the good folk of Cranleigh and the surrounding villages!
• The 20 community beds will be open to ANYONE  in the GWCCG area – which covers Guildford & Waverley, not just Cranleigh and the surrounding villages.
• We are told by health workers – who have contacted us in confidence – that it is to assist with Royal Surrey County Hospital’s bed-blocking, some of which is as a direct result of SCC’s decision to close its homes in the borough.

Now pay attention!  Here’s where it gets a bit complicated.

Residents have written to us because they simply cannot unearth the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth from CVHT. What they want to know is:


Will fund-raisers and residents of Cranleigh and the surrounding villages get priority over out-of-area patients, if they require a bed?


Of the 80 beds – 60 are for a Private Patients only – the remaining 20 are named as ‘community beds.’

So, in a nutshell, as Monsieur Barnier is so fond of saying: the answer is ‘NON!’
But, to elaborate, if two patients needed one of the 20 available beds – one from Guildford and one from Cranleigh – then likely as not, depending on their condition – the “local” may get first dibs. However, beds will not be kept vacant “just in case”. “It just wouldn’t make economic sense.”

Also, nursing homes are now becoming an outdated service. In NHS jargon, its the future direction of travel for patients to remain in their own homes, assisted by staff and new technology. A bit like the model already being funded by The League of Friends. According to its records of funding for its ‘End of Life Care’ programme for years.

One official who dare not be named for fear of reprisals from the CVHT spokesman, Martin Bamford, told the WW:

“An outmoded scheme – a dinosaur – is being foisted on the town of Cranleigh. Two Monolithic buildings that will tower over Whisker Drive, all because the Charity clings like a limpet to the wreckage of a disappearing dream which has now morphed into a money spinner for developers”. The whistleblower claimed the parish council had been duped, as it was never its intention to support a private care-home provider on land once owned by the parish. Neither was it residents’ intention that the site be used for residential accommodation when hundreds of “affordables” are currently under construction in the town.”

“Some, purporting to be the saviours of Cranleigh, should hang their heads in shame. The winners here are: the health authority, SCC, and a billionaire health provider – AC-ONE Mr Chai Patel.

The losers? – local residents who were duped into parting with their cash. Many of whom would never be able to afford a private nursing home bed or take advantage of the social care community beds they’re money has funded!

To be continued ….

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 16.22.34.png

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 16.22.47.png

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 16.23.12.png

The Waverley Web is not entirely sure why the Charity is still using the image below which is a blatant disregard of the advice it has been given?

Screen Shot 2018-11-30 at 16.22.59.png

When is a hospital not a hospital? When it’s in “poor old Cranleigh? – whose residents appear to have been SHAFTED by a charity!

Long awaited plans for new healthcare facilities in Cranleigh to be submitted. WHEN exactly? Are there plans afoot to bring Cranleigh traffic to a standstill?



So Jodie Kidd thinks it’s a hoot to break into Dunsfold Aerodrome and race down the runway to demonstrate how daring-do and cool she is to her 37,000 followers on Instagram.


Really, Jodie – you must be kidding?

Do you actually think it’s clever – or for that matter sane – to abuse your knowledge of the Aerodrome to tell every petrol head in the country how they can sneak into an active aerodrome under the radar – no pun intended! – and tear down the runway, at the risk of colliding with a plane and causing a major incident in the process?! You might look like a bimbo but do you really want to reinforce that image by acting like one?

We know your life is a bit of a car crash – we’ve lost count of the failed relationships! – but that doesn’t mean you have to incite others to behave as recklessly as you.

You’re 40 years old and have been around the block a few times, not 14 – and just starting out! 

In the meantime, if the Dunsfold Developer has any sense, it will ban you from the Aerodrome before you do someone a serious injury with your childish antics!

Meanwhile, as you admitted, on camera, to breaking and entering perhaps Surrey Police might like to stage a high profile arrest and post that on THEIR Instagram account in order to deter other boy racers from trying to emulate you …



It’s a Bugs Life- and it could be on its way to Waverley?


 Asian Hornet Sighting In Guildford – could it be that the Waverley Web has struck!

While it is smaller than our native European hornet, it can make very large nests and it also stings, so the public should be very cautious and not disturb the nests but report it straight away.

Screen Shot 2018-11-07 at 16.07.08.png

by Hugh Coakley of the amazing Guildford Dragon.

As reported last year (Beekeeper’s Notes April ’17; Foreign Invaders from Europe), the fear of an invasion of the Asian hornet is one step closer with a sighting now in Slyfield, Guildford.

Beekeeper Mark Seabrook, who works in premises on the Slyfield Industrial Estate, was more than surprised to see a dead hornet on the floor and, on closer inspection, for it to be an Asian hornet.

Mark said: “It was not something that I expected to ever actually see in Guildford. I keep bees so I do look out for such things but to see it on my workshop floor was a shock.

“It is difficult to know where it came from, whether it is from a local nest or came in on a transporter from around the country or even in a parts container from abroad.”

Mark has reported the finding to the DEFRA Non Native Species secretariatand to the Guildford Beekeeper’s Association.

Marilynne Bainbridge, who chairs the Guildford branch of the National Beekeepers’ Association, said: “It is very worrying for bees and beekeepers. There have been quite a few sightings now with the closest being in the neighbouring county of Hampshire where four nests were destroyed very recently.

“Beekeepers and the public need to be on the alert for this destructive invader and to report it to alertnonnative@ceh.ac.uk immediately.”

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




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


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

Screen Shot 2018-11-28 at 14.00.58.png

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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





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


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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

Says POW:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

99 donations…

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

just 89 donations from members of the Waverley public.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-27 at 23.32.55.png

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



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

So why not in Godalming?

Milford Golf Course 23112018

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

The temperatures rising.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alfold                  £10,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-25 at 10.14.18.png

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



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

What is happening to our towns and villages?


Screen Shot 2018-08-03 at 18.26.51.png

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

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


Screen Shot 2018-11-19 at 07.17.24.png

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


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


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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 13.03.25.png

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-23 at 14.07.17.png


Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 11.55.25.png



The Waverley Web unmasked by Protect Our Waverley?!?


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

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

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

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

The Waverley Web! But 10/10 for trying.


He nearly fell off his stool from laughing. 

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

25.10.18 – Farnham Herald – Deteriorating standards copy

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

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


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


Screen Shot 2018-11-19 at 10.31.24.png

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 09.46.05

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-09 at 09.52.16.png

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chocks away for another Dunsfold Museum?


Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 16.34.34.png



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that begs a whole new question:

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

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



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

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


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

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

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




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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 15.05.12.png

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

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


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

Thank you all.

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


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

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 11.14.02.png

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





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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-17 at 12.12.34.png


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


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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-15 at 17.50.09.png

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


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


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

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

Even Worse- Why?

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-14 at 18.47.45.png

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

‘Profits before people.”

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

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

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

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

“back to the drawing board.” 

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-15 at 10.30.12.png

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

Now you don’t!

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


Berkeley Homes Space Standards





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WW will be revealing more on that later!

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still think poor POW is cash-strapped?

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

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

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

 Instead, deferring it for further consultation.  

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

The sun sets on Surrey’s sinking ship.







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


Please Waverley Planners – can we have more concrete?


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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




The CILly Season will begin soon?



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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hasn’t anyone ever told her they never do?

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

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

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

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

Alfold gets a new heart – and a safer village?



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

… OH NO!

Dumb or what?

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2018-11-06 at 20.04.55.png

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not? 

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

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

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

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

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


Which leads us to wonder?

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


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

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


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


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




And she is singing at the top of her voice. 

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

Screen Shot 2017-08-31 at 14.06.40.png

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Report to Waverley BC Sept 3 2018




Another little Awfuld scandal in the making?


For donkey’s years, an Alfold farmer attempted to gain planning permission to build on his land at Linden Farm – even tried to convert the piggeries. NO, GO! said Waverley planners, again, and again, and is applications were…


Then following his tragic death, villagers still talk about it they tell us, his family tried.  again.

Mainly on highway groundsrefused2 and objections from the former chairman of the parish council WHO lives opposite.

Then along comes, Surrey County Council that doesn’t require planning permission, just consults the borough council and hey ho – here we go! Planning permission granted.

Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 09.34.03.pngNow, parents have criticised Surrey County Council for attempting to reduce the size of an activity centre on the site of a residential home for adults with autism.

Work has already begun on the building of Linden Farm in Rosemary Lane, Alfold, but parents of adults with autism will move in there say they are concerned with last-minute changes to plans.

They have lodged a formal complaint about Surrey County Council’s handling of the build and say it is “immoral” that £360,000 raised by The Simon Trust to help fund the centre has been turned down.

Sally Lawrence, whose son Simon has severe autism and will be one of 10 residents moving into the complex is chairman of The Simon Trust.

Addressing councillors at Surrey County Council planning and regulatory committee meeting on Wednesday, (17 October), she said the size of the activity centre and removing the horticultural area would negatively impact residents.

She said: “People with autism need space. Without space and meaningful activities, both indoor and out it will not be fit for purpose.”

Husband Peter Lawrence questioned why the cash they had raised had not been accepted and used by the council and urged them to work with the Trust and parents.

He said: “All we want is for someone to listen to people who actually know and understand autism. We want Linden Farm to be a success.”

Planning permission was granted in 2017 for the former pig farm, but since then further design work has taken place and “minor material amendments” to one of the conditions has been made include reducing the size of the activity block by 45 per cent.

Social workers from Surrey County Council Adult Social Care defended the changes saying it was “a positive change which offers a person-centred and flexible space” and they said the space for gardening will be revisited once the building work has completed.

Accommodation includes five self-contained units with overnight staff quarters, a share accommodation block plus activity centre with offices and staff facilities.

Councillors deferred the application in a bid to open dialogue between Surrey County Council adult social care teams and The Simon Trust and to ensure the complex becomes a centre of excellence for adults with autism.

Mr and Mrs Lawrence welcomed the decision and said after the meeting they would be open to discussions on how the council can use the money they have raised.

The moral of the tale: Don’t trust Surrey County Council with your money, your roads, your children’s centres, your recycling centres or…

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


Or is Protect Our Little Corner of Waverley sweating on the top line awaiting the Judge’s decision on whether a brownfield site at Dunsfold will be built on?


Over 70 residents were safely gathered in at a Haslemere Hotel to register their objection to the development of a former large estate in Scotland Lane  Nobody, including ‘Your Waverley’, is going to ride roughshod over them!   Even if a scheme for more than 30 new homes is included in its local Plan Part 2.

Whilst Haslemere Councillors were busy shouting down the LP 2 at Waverley Towers the residents of Haslemere were expressing their concerns about yet another green field in their town being covered in concrete. The LP 2 was subsequently postponed. Read in here on the WW Has Mr Angry of Haslemere finally picked up his phone to his Waverley councillor?

Bets are on that now Councillor Bobby Knowless has thrown his toys out of the pram – the newly appointed Haslemere Town Councillor Peter Isherwood, former chairman of Waverley’s most senior planning committee, will be opposing any further development in Haslemere too. So keep shouting Haslemere people, because those who shout the loudest normally get heard at ‘Your Waverley.’

Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 10.49.34.pngDqHxlIiXcAIOrLK.jpg-large.jpeg


Let’s get those damn trees and hedgerow out and cover this land in concrete? After all, that’s if they did it in Knowle Lane, Cranleigh and got away with it, so why can’t we do it here? 


Come on boys get chopping – they are only trees that have been there for hundreds of years! And Waverley Council won’t be looking – will they? Well, they weren’t looking in Wrecclesham, or Cranleigh or Ewhurst or Farnham or…?




Surrey’s Fly Tipping Horror



Here’s what County Hall could look like in the future?

Just as residents reel from Surrey County Council’s shock announcement that it wants to close Recycling Centres around the county including  Cranleigh & Farnham – here’s a clip on what reduced recycling already looks like in the county:

The Council is “consulting” on permanently closing between four and six CRC’s.  Farnham is on the list – so is Cranleigh; Bagshot; Dorking; Lyne (Chertsey) and Warlingham. 

Residents in Farnham are foaming at the mouth saying they will be forced to travel to Witley or over the border into Hampshire. Cranleigh people are already travelling into Horsham across the West Sussex County boundary as their site is only open at weekends and is causing traffic chaos in Elmbridge Road.


Screen Shot 2018-10-31 at 20.43.40.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-31 at 20.43.31.pngScreen Shot 2018-10-31 at 20.43.17.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-31 at 20.43.06.png

Cranleigh people are arguing their County Councillors to step up to the Mark. By the way, has anyone seen their Little Povey?mylittlepovey2 



Screen Shot 2018-10-31 at 20.38.38.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-31 at 20.38.19.pngScreen Shot 2018-10-31 at 20.38.47.png


A Waverley Liberal and a Tory unite.


paul_carole_farnham.jpgIt took an unlikely duo of a Godalming Liberal Democrat and a Farnham Conservative to overthrow officer approval for a development that reduced the number of affordable homes by 5 at Green Lane Farm, Badshot Lea in Farnham last night.

It might have been a sight to behold as Councillor Paul Follows proposed rejection of the scheme seconded by Carole Cockburn – except of course the webcast went down…again…and again throughout the debate.

However, the vote was still narrow – won by just 9 votes to 7.

The developer was asked to reduce their affordable housing contribution from 40% – agreed at the time of Waverley’s draft Local Plan in June 2016. Since then Waverley Tories took it upon themselves to change their draft plan down to 30% affordable housing with the aim of asking for greater S106 contributions for infrastructure – that is of course when they can remember to ask for them!
The developer had already taken account of the policy when purchasing the land beyond the greenbelt claiming  ‘exceptional circumstances’ to gain consent for 45 homes  – granted at appeal. It now wants to change the housing mix by adding several larger detached homes and tacking on a load of conservatories. It is believed, this would add over £1-1.5million to the developer’s profits by permitting the changes.
Changes that the officers were quite happy to rubber stamp with the support of seven Tories. 

Pity Farnham Councillor Chris Storey was prevented by the borough solicitor from reading out an -email sent a planning officer? 

He said “We are well used as members of this planning committee to being threatened with appeals by developers. But perhaps my fellow councillors would like me to read out an e-mail sent by this developer…

… when he was suddenly stopped in his tracks by the solicitor saying “It would not be sensible to do so.”


If developers are using threatening behaviour to councillors or officers, why shouldn’t the public be told?

This Inspector’s decision was deeply unpopular with councillors and officers alike, but none more so than for  Councillor Carole Cockburn who had walked every inch of Farnham with colleagues to devise Farnham’s Adopted Neighbourhood Plan. A plan which had been well-supported by the residents of Weybourne and Badshot Lea, and whose views had now been trashed by a Government Inspector – and not by Waverley.

She said “The people who live there will soon see for themselves how much the place “STINKS – IT JUST STINKS!” The band sits between the sewage works and the rugby field. Funny that! She was quite happy to consent to a similar site on a floodplain adjacent to a sewage treatment works in Cranleigh!

However, a man who can always be relied upon to stick up his mitt, that is of course if he’s awake! Councillor Michael Goodridge – who said his colleagues should set aside the “emotional baggage of fewer affordable homes and grant the application.”

Now let’s see this developer get this through at appeal too!

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


Why else would Waverley scramble to pull the Local Plan Part 2 meeting with only two days notice, in order to…

“consult further?”

Councillor Julia Potts, Leader of Waverley Borough Council, said: “This item is being deferred as councillors want the council to have more time to engage with the local community about some of the content of the draft LPP2 before it is published, including further work on site allocations and gaining further feedback from key stakeholders such as Thames Water and local clinical commissioning groups.”


A comment from the Waverley Web? No – a comment from Godalming Councillor Paul Follows.

“Well frankly I should think so too – so unbelievably rushed through and I can’t think of a single parish, town or area in Waverley that diPdn’t have some issue with this document or feel that more consultation was needed.
I had a huge feeling I was going to be one of very few councillors that were going to vote against this for exactly this reason.
Very sensibly postponed otherwise we would once again be paying lip service to localism.”


A group that ‘Speaks up for Cranleigh’ wants to know if residents want the Downslink upgraded?


Hasn’t it heard – doesn’t it read the Waverley Web? –  A Hambledon councillor has met with the heads of Network Rail and SW trains and MP Jeremy Hunt to bring back the Horsham to Guildford railway line along the Downslink through Cranleigh.

Here’s what The Cranleigh Civic Society says:

Some people think that other countries are much better at encouraging outdoor activities; even for those who can only go for walks, bike rides and push-chairs or wheelchairs travel.

Have you ever visited French, German, American or other areas where it’s just normal to find well-maintained paths in and around towns, villages and the countryside?  Are those places popular with good quality tourists?

So how would it be if money from all the building works was spent of making sure we have a great footpath all along the Downs Link?

Wouldn’t it be great to no longer fear the railway line after rain for all the black mud created up one’s back when cycling, all over the dogs and unable to use pushchairs and wheelchairs?

(Not quite sure what it actually means in the paragraph above? – Do cyclists ride roughshod over dogs over there in Cranleigh?

Our Waverley would have to be made very aware of this public desire.  Let us know – by contacting us directly!

Here’s what Councillor Nick Holder told his Waverley Coucil colleagues. 

Ever wondered why the NHS is running out of​ money?


Well – here’s your answer.

Screen Shot 2018-10-25 at 10.00.16.png

You may remember way back when the WW posted on a Turnaround Director’s pay at the Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford.

Two years ago he received £60,000 a month – £3,000 per day.

Focus on “financial position?” What’s it all about Alfie?

The Royal Surrey County Hospital’s Tax on the sick gets a top award!

But this poor devil on the Isle of Wight only received £1,920 per day because NHS England is cutting back!

NHS England approved the use of an interim director providing turnaround support for a clinical commissioning group at a cost of £1,920 a day, HSJ has learned.

The total costs – just under £300,000 including VAT, travel and expenses for work between July 2016 and March 2017 – were shared between the Isle of Wight Clinical Commissioning Group and the island’s trust, which also sought support from him.

 The money was paid to Cornwall based Orwin Algeo Management Solutions. Phil Orwin, a director of the company, appears in publicly available documents listed as interim turnaround director at the Isle of Wight CCG.

The appointment was one of 40 requests for approval of interims in CCGs costing more than £900 a day since new procedures were brought in from August 2016.

Since then, their appointments have had to be approved by NHS England’s commercial executive committee.

A total of 31 out of 40 applications have been approved according to information obtained by Health Service Journal under the Freedom of Information Act. The £1,920 daily rate on the Isle of Wight was the highest approved since the controls were brought in.

A spokesman for NHS England said: “NHS England brought in clear and tough controls for CCGs to stop excessive payments, which have resulted in a £33m reduction on spend and as a result people no longer receive these rates of pay.”

Maggie MacIsaac, chief executive for the Hampshire and Isle of Wight CCG Partnership, said: “There are occasions where outside, specialist expertise is needed in the NHS, for a short period of time, and during 2016-17 the NHS on the Isle of Wight was facing severe financial pressure.

“Specialist expertise was contracted to help get the Island’s NHS working together more closely, and more efficiently, and to better support frontline teams to deliver care. All governance arrangements in place at the time were adhered to.”

Needless to say, there was no comment from Orwin Algeo Management Solutions when it was approached for comment as it was busy laughing all the way to the Bank.

How will a second runway at Gatwick affect the residents of Waverley?



Screen Shot 2018-04-07 at 21.55.28.png

Cranleigh and the villages in the East are part of the area knows as the Gatwick triangle.


The East of the borough including Haslemere, Chiddingfold, Cranleigh, Ewhurst and the villages in between are all affected by Gatwick air traffic. Some more than others.

The decision by Gatwick Airport to issue a Masterplan, which includes proposals to convert the Emergency Runway into a fully active second runway has prompted an outcry.

The Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign Chairman, Peter Barclay says – “We strongly oppose any second runway at Gatwick and we will fight this proposal tooth and nail.” He said the proposal could bring in an extra 80,000 additional flights a year.

Cranleigh has already been described by airport officials as The Gateway To Gatwick, but other villages including Rudgwick are affected by the increasing number of flights.

The Emergency runway is located parallel to, and approximately 190m north of the main runway. Planning permission was granted 40 years ago on the basis that it could only be used for emergencies. However, that legal agreement expires in August 2019. So Gatwick’s second runway could arrive through the back door. However, it will need approval from the CAA and other safety bodies, as well as requiring planning permission for a change of use.

Objectors argue should this go ahead, it will substantially increase the noise and disturbance to residents living to the north of the airport, particularly on those living and working beneath the now concentrated departure and arrivals flightpaths to both the east and west of the airport.

There will be a 12-week consultation on the Master Plan once published.


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


FINISHED FLOOR LEVEL – Otherwise know in Cranleigh as F**k the Flood Levels!



 What high manhole covers the Berkeley Bunnies are installing on their site in Knowle Lane, Cranleigh!

An eagle-eyed resident who took this photo forwarded it to the Waverley Web as they couldn’t quite believe what they were seeing. ‘Surely, this must just be a positioning exercise?’ was the question they posed. One of our many Cranleigh correspondents wasn’t so sure and, after diligently checking the planning application came back and said, ‘Nope! What you see is what you get’!

Bluntly, both Berkeley Homes and Waverley planners knew that the Knowle Lane site wasn’t sustainable under the sequential test but they pushed it through anyway and the manhole covers will need to be this high above ground level in an effort to avoid flooding.

Few Cranleigh residents will forget the flooding in these fields – and elsewhere in Cranleigh – during the heavy floods of December 2013. But neither the Berkeley Bunnies nor  Waverley Planners care because they won’t be living in the houses the next time Cranleigh Floods.

Have we heard a peep out of POW about the ‘sustainability’ of this development? Not bloody likely? 
Where were POW when Cranleigh residents were fighting, tooth and nail to oppose development on a site that, in addition to flooding, is on a narrow country lane, betwixt and between the rear entrances to Sainsbury’s and Marks & Sparks – both of whom receive daily deliveries from HGVs – and a business, called Kerbside – which does what it says on the tin! – causing traffic chaos.

Not to mention CVNT’s (Cranleigh Village Nursing Home Trust’s) plans to build a private nursing home with a 28 flat apartment block adjacent to it, just a hop, skip and a field away across the lane?

If ever a development was unsustainable – one of POW’s favourite refrains – it was this one!

But, despite its name – Protect our Waverley – the only part of Waverley Capt’n Bob and his cohorts are interested in protecting is their own little corner, over there in Dunsfold. They really couldn’t give a damn if the good folks of Cranleigh see their furniture floating down the High Street as, memorably, happened in the great floods of 1968 … Nik Pigeon and Chris Britton hope to have sold their houses and wiped the dust of Waverley off their boots by then and Capt’n Bob, like Noah, will sail serenely on with Stacey Strumpett & Cliff Clavin on the Good Ship POW!

What a crock of crap poor old Cranleigh is sitting on thanks to the greed of the Berkeley Bunnies, the stupidity of Waverley Planners and the selfishness of POW and its supporters!

We simply console ourselves with the thought that what goes around, comes around and, talking of crap, just how is Awfold going to cope with the affluent’s effluent emanating from Thakeham Homes’ scheme at Springbok? No doubt bosom buddies Betty Ames, Chris Britton, Nik Pigeon, & Crystal Tipps Weddell have all the answers! And we just can’t wait to hear them … we could do with a good laugh in face of the latest crisis in Cranleigh!

And, we thought we had it bad over here in Farnham – beginning to make Crest Nicholson look like Mary Poppins.

Do you remember when we told you Scuba potholing was becoming the latest sporting craze?


Did you know that Surrey’s roads are now sooooooo bad, that people have begun putting sticking plaster over the cracks?

Screen Shot 2018-10-07 at 20.02.09.png

Some are so bad, residents are taking up Potholing at weekends in the country roads.


Come to Surrey and visit the UK’s capital of potholes – on and off-road!

Screen Shot 2018-10-25 at 09.39.35.pngHowever, the Waverley Web has decided to have its very own personal gripe to-day! Why shouldn’t we indulge ourselves from time to time? South West Trains – GRUHHHH!! Along with thousands of others, we couldn’t get to work in London yesterday due to a signal failure. So we tried to get there by road and due to the gridlock on the A31 and on the A3 due to gridlock in Guildford turned around and decided to take a long walk off a short cliff!

Screen Shot 2018-10-25 at 09.39.23.png

Who exactly IS responsible for the Blightwells debacle?



Here’s what one Farnham resident believes.


— While feelings in Farnham, both among residents and the town’s many visitors, reflect a mixture of grief, anger and disbelief that we have allowed the catastrophe that is Brightwells to befall us, should we not reflect upon who exactly is responsible?

I don’t mean those that drew up the scheme in the first place since it was roundly and rightly rejected immediately by the Farnham public. But what about those that continue to support it now that it can be seen to be so completely outdated in concept and design and has proved to be a commercial flop before a single brick has been laid?

Latest in this group is Surrey County Council leader David Hodge, who has at the last minute committed £30 million of our money into dragging the scheme from the scrap heap where it belongs, having failed to raise any interest whatsoever from professional commercial investors?

In terms of council responsibility, it goes without saying that Waverley’s joint planning committee members cannot take all the blame since only eight of its current members actually live in Farnham against 38 that don’t (such is local democracy in our town these days), the latter presumably being only too pleased that schemes such as this don’t take place on their patch.

There are two local public servants, however, that do spring immediately to mind. The Right Hon Jeremy Hunt has maintained a complete and unforgivable silence on what is by far the most massive development ever to take place in Farnham, right in the heart of his constituency, arousing many querulous inquiries as to his motives. Then there is Julia Potts, leader of Waverley Council, who has remained pugnaciously opposed to any criticism of the scheme and immune to the deafening public outcry against it.

For Crest Nicholson’s part. a name familiar to those that attended the 2013 meeting to approve the compulsory purchase and closure of The Marlborough Head pub will be Chris Tinker, the company’s major projects chairman. His evidence’of commercial funding about to be confirmed for the project tipped the Government Inspector in favour of the purchase so allowing the project to proceed, a promise that evaporated as quickly as it had appeared.

Then finally there is Pam Alexander CBE. Ms Alexander is chairman of something called Design Council CABE whose raison d’être is to ensure that developers provide us with decent, appropriate, popular and well-designed schemes. CABE’s website states that “crucial to inclusive design is consultation with user groups, putting people who represent a diversity of age, ability, gender and community at the heart of the design process” and that “the effect (that such schemes) will have on the surrounding landscape and its distinctive historical and cultural context has to be evaluated as do the implications for the area’s circulation patterns, neighbouring activities and property uses. The views and sensitivities of the surrounding community should also be given weight”.

It is impossible to imagine a scheme less in line with the stated aims of CABE or with the needs and aspirations of a community such as Farnham than Crest Nicholson’s monstrous and destructive Brightwells development. One is led to wonder what convinced Ms Alexander to keep her eyes and ears so firmly closed with regard to the scheme during the six-year period to January this year while she was employed by Crest Nicholson as a non executive director on a ‘fee’ of 50,000 per annum, so making a mockery of her position at CABE.

So there we have it, my list of the wanted. Would it not be appropriate to spend the £100,000 pounds promised by Waverley and Crest on ‘public art’ for their scheme on a fitting monument of some kind to these people? Suggestions welcome. For starters, what about an edition of ‘Wanted’ posters to decorate the new East Farnham Wall that now surrounds the site …?

Andrew Jones, Fox Yard, Farnham



Just a few days ago there was a ​public outcry over potential damage to Ancient Woodland and protected trees on a housing development in Wrecclesham.


Bewley Homes gallops into Farnham and rides roughshod all over ‘Your Waverley.’

Could this possibly be the tree that Bewley Homes left behind?

Screen Shot 2018-10-07 at 21.23.43.png

As trees, hedges and even ancient woodland, bite the dust all over the borough of Waverley, the WW has injected just a  little humour into this very serious subject.


POW in takeover bid for Awfold’s Neighbourhood Plan?




Left Councillor Kevin Deanus joins villagers to protest against the Springbok application – has the councillor who has fought development changed his mind? Has the Alfold Bobby’s tirade stopped the creation of Alfold New Town?

As if it hadn’t enough on its hands fighting the Dunsfold Park developer, the mutter in the Awfold gutter is that Protect our Little Corner is making a takeover bid for Awfold’s Neighbourhood Plan… and soon its parish council!

 Great, they’re going to stop development in Awfold, we hear you cry. And not before time! Finally, they’re taking an interest in somewhere other than Dunsfold Aerodrome. Well done, POW, you’re finally living up to your name!

Well, er …, no, not exactly! According to our informants – and they are many! – POW is planning to concrete all over Awfold’s green and pleasant fields in its latest bid to stop development just a hop, skip and a field away at Dunsfold Aerodrome, the largest brownfield site in the borough.


You couldn’t make it up, really you couldn’t! A scheme that was turned down at Appeal by a Government Inspector earlier this year is, only months later, is now being promoted by the Neighbourhood Plan Committee.

WTF is going on in Awfold, we hear you ask? Awfold residents could not have made it clearer how they felt about Thakeham Homes’ Springbok application – when they turned out in their droves to give it a big, huge thumbs down – but Thakeham’s supporters are determined to get the development back on the agenda.

Are Thakeham’s supporters now promoting another of its cunning plans?

You might well ask! Of course, everyone knows Nik Pigeon, Chairman of Awfold Parish Council, has declared a pecuniary interest in the Springbok scheme but, according to our informants – who have been busy trawling through Awfold Parish Council’s parish papers, following recent, startling revelations about the Parish Council’s money-laundering activities – piles of dodgy do-do are being uncovered. One of which whiffs to high heaven!

Apparently, in April this year, up popped POW’s very own slippery little hypocrite  Chris Britton, who, together with  his wife Cilla, now sit on Awfold’s Neighbourhood Plan Committee

So why would someone who lives in a house overlooking Dunsfold Aerodrome whose been fighting the Dunsfold Developer tooth-and-nail, to prevent development on his doorstep, want to team up with another developer to help them build homes just a hop, skip and a field away on the other side of the aerodrome on someone else’s doorstep? It really does beg the question what’s in it for him?

In fact, call us stupid but the Waverley Web, can’t understand why anyone is calling for more sites for development  there because the village only has to find 125 homes to comply with Your Waverley’s Local Plan and it already has:

• 55 consented – and going up fast – at Sweeters Copse as part of Phase 1, with further homes in the pipeline for Phase 2;
• 23 consented at Brockhurst Farm on the Horsham Road;
• 57?  at the former Wyevale Garden Centre, where consent has already been granted for part of the site and a new application is seeking to increase that number;
• 11 at Oakhurst Farm (SCC) 
• Not to mention numerous conversions of barns and outbuildings – including at the Alfold Craft Centre, and a number of individual new homes – all of which are described as ‘windfall’ sites!

So, without even trying, Awfold has already exceeded the 125 homes it needs by over a fifth and yet POW’s Boy Britton is busy promoting other schemes including at Springbok, owned by Care Ashore, or as some believe Thakeham Homes?

In addition, as part of the call for sites, numerous other Alfold landowners – most of whom objected to development at Dunsfold Aerodrome,  – have rushed to throw their land into the hat, including Care Ashore’s land south of Satchel Court Drive; The Nutshell, Horsham Road; Glebelands Farm, Loxwood Road; land at the entrance to Wildwood Golf Club; Bridian Farm, Little Bookers Lea Farm, to name but a few.

Carry on at this rate and Awfold’s green and pleasant fields will quickly become Awfold New Town whilst, next door, the largest brownfield site in the borough sits idle if POW’s Boy Britton has anything to do with it. What a treacherous little Weasel he is!

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

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 19.00.42.png

Another shedload of homes on their way to the countryside in Alfold – adjacent to Dunsfold Airfield.

Don’t Panic Mr Mainwaring! It’s only Awfoldgate again…


Follow me, ​Follows.


There’s no doubt about it Waverley Town and Borough Councillor Paul Follows is certainly keeping his finger on Godalming’s pulse.  The town’s new boy is digging deep into development plans which could have a huge impact on the town’s future. We are sure others are doing the same -but are not quite so vocal? So the WW will go with the man who has his fingers on the keyboard.

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 10.01.15.png

Here’s what is being proposed now that ‘Your Waverley” is rolling back the Green Belt around Godalming.

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 10.00.41.png


Two of the main concerns that have been raised by residents so far have been regarding traffic and the environment.

Paul’s view:

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 10.00.20.png

The application (on the Waverley planning portal) has now had two important comments logged against it – one from Natural England and one from Surrey Highways.


NE has in this case requested some more information about some of the protected animal and plant species that may be present: read its full comments here:



SH has commented upon the methodology the applicant has employed, the mitigations proposed and other related matters and a number of other areas. It’s a bit of read but I really would welcome any comments on this.


Last week along with other Waverley councillors he attended a session with Ashill,  (the developer) Surrey Highways and other Waverley Councillors to informally discuss the application – so Paul welcomes any general queries. 

He was also a guest of Witley Parish Council (also discussing the application and the potential impact upon their area).

Oh Boy – Waverley’s new boy, certainly gets around!

Happy to discuss on here or at Paul.follows@waverley.gov.uk

Don’t Panic​ Mr Mainwaring! It’s only Awfoldgate again…


unexplained_wealthAlfold Parish Council had a rude awakening this week. The usually sleepy parish which allows its Councillors to do pretty much what they like when they like, how they like, was called to account when one of its residents spotted that over a quarter of a million pounds had flowed through its bank account. Yep, you did read that right – a QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS!

Unsurprisingly, that gentlemen nearly choked on his cornflakes and uttered an Anglo Saxon expletive that we’re too mealy-mouthed to repeat here. Intrigued, we asked someone over there to investigate, which they duly did, and we posted their findings. After all, despite the alleged disdain with which the Waverley Web is held by the local establishment – by which we mean the Tory Party, Waverley Borough Council and the uptight Parish Councillors – we know damn well they all read us. The proof is in the pudding and our ratings shot through the roof during Awfold-Gate!

Oh boy, did we hit a nerve? Nic Pigeon – the chairman and local lawyer  – was on the phone to the Parish Clerk quicker than a rat up a drain pipe. Sadly, unlike the FBI, WW can’t tap phones, so we’ve made do with our fertile imaginations – believing the conversation went something like this:

Pigeon: Now pay attention, Beverley! We’re in, potentially, deep do-do over our love-in with POW and the other Parishes. Not that we did anything illegal, you understand, but, let’s face it, Capt’n Bob and the Boy Britten aren’t too popular with the Waverley Web and, somehow, they’ve managed to make them the laughing stock of the Borough. God knows how but we don’t want that happening to us. Mrs P would fall off her horse- and then we might have to give up our Springbok land.

Bev: ‘Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. I’m sure no one takes the Waverley Web seriously …’

Pigeon: ‘Are you mad, woman? Of course, people take it seriously! Even Julia Potts has been overheard admitting she reads the Waverley Web. WBC doesn’t bother issuing internal memos now – it’s a waste of time – because the Waverley Web knows what’s going on at the Burys before they do! We have to nip this in the bud and fast!’ Before they start looking at the VAT returns!

Bev: ‘That’s a shame. I’ve had several compliments from friends who’ve seen my picture on the Waverley Web.


Oh, I know it’s not like being on the front cover of Vogue but, you have to admit, you’re no one in Waverley if you don’t get a mention on the Waverley Web. I’m quite enjoying my 15 minutes of fame and …’

Pigeon: ‘Dear God! Get a grip, woman! soon you’ll be suggesting I ring up and offer to pose for an official photograph to go with their next article!’

Bev:  Actually, a good idea. If you submit your own photos you could airbrush out the bits you don’t like. They managed a very flattering photo of me (thank God they didn’t find the one of me with my trousers rolled up, paddling, at West Wittering. 

Pigeon:  Never mind West Wittering. Stop wittering and CONCENTRATE! We need to think …  come to think of it you might just be on to something! That’s just what we need to do. I take it all back. You’re a genius! We need to start wittering. Take a letter, Beverley, we’re  writing to the Waverley Web …’

Bev: What?  Betty won’t like it …’

Pigeon: ‘Bugger Betty! Well, not literally, of course … God, perish the thought!’

Bev: ‘You cannot be serious?’

Pigeon: ‘What? About Betty? Of course not!’

Bev: ‘No, not about Betty. About writing to the Waverley Web!’

Pigeon:  I never thought those words would pass my lips, but, I’m afraid, we need to hold our noses and just do it. This is about damage limitation and the only way out of this is to offer a carefully choreographed explanation.  I know we don’t consider ourselves accountable to anyone but, sadly, the days of what goes on in the Parish Council stays in the Parish Council are long gone. Nowadays, what goes on in the Parish Council goes on the Waverley Web and what goes on the Waverley Web ends up on Facebook and Twitter! Their reach is … well, let’s just say it’s far-reaching. 

Why else do you think Groucho Ground retired and went to work for POW? Why do you think I’m retiring? Just you wait, Charles Orange The Big D’s final stretch.   will be the next one stepping down, mark my words. He’s never been the same, you know, not since they outed him as an out-of-town developer … And, no, I didn’t know about that. I must say he kept it very quiet – very, very quiet – but then, of course, he would. Not that I blame him, anyone would. Development’s a dirty word around here! You can be a developer’s solicitor, his accountant, his bank manager, his planner even … but you can’t actually be a developer! That really is social death! Unless, of course, you’re really, really, really successful and you do it in someone else’s backyard. It doesn’t do to dump on your own doorstep! That’s bad form. So,. Let’s put our heads together and see what face-saving narrative we can come up with for laundering all that cash for POW. Pity we didn’t let one of the other Parishes do it but it seemed like such a good wheeze at the time …’

Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at 15.10.41

PS. Has anyone else noted that the Parish Council’s website is now, suddenly, bang up to date, with even draft Minutes being posted? Now there’s a first and, if nothing else, maybe they’ll be a little less complacent going forward.

Charterhouse headmaster meets​ Old Boy MP jockeying into position to be the next Prime Minister?


For MPs, a Friday is Constituency Day – a chance to reacquaint themselves with whatever rotten borough lent them their seat. So on Friday our MP tweeted he had met his favourite developer – his alma mater.


Having had a briefing from some worried Tory Councillors about restless locals, he hurried down to The Ming to get first dibs on the upcoming offer. Its a shame he didn’t have time to meet with the local ‘Broom and Lee – Keep Charterhouse Green Belt Greens’ campaign group at the same time.

You may think that’s strange, however, the Waverley Web couldn’t possibly comment.




It’s  all kicking off in Alfold as news of the Parish Council’s unexpected windfall – of £276,400 – and subsequent spending spree – of the same – began to spread like wildfire around the village and the phrase, ‘WTF?’ went viral as residents across the borough, not just in Alfold, began to ask what on earth had been going on in not so sleepy Alfold (population circa 1000)?

Here at the Waverley Web, our inbox hasn’t stopped pinging. Many of the postings have been unprintable and speculation is rife about what exactly Alfold Parish Councillors have been up to, under the aegis of outgoing Chairman Nik Pigeon and Clerk Beverly Weddell.

The Waverley Web doesn’t know but the rumour mill has gone into overdrive and it isn’t just Alfold residents who are demanding an explanation.

Several correspondents have speculated that Crystal Tipps Weddell, who is up to her ringlets in Protect our Little Corner, has been laundering donations for the organisation through the Parish Council.

Assuming that is the case, Why can’t POW manage its own dirty linen? is a question that many people are asking.


Others are surmising that POW, with the connivance of Alfold Parish Council and, in particular, Crystal Tipps Weddell might be concealing the true extent of its financial resources in order to improve its chances of securing protection from the costs of its High Court Challenge to Waverley Borough Council, the Secretary of State and the Dunsfold Developer. All under something called the Aarhus Convention.

We understand POW has been pleading poverty claiming  to have only pennies in its bank account –  which even the High Court Judge found less than credible – but if they’ve been ‘laundering’ their cash through the Parish Council’s bank account that would go a long way to explaining the, to-date, inexplicable paucity of their own bank account!

Is anyone going to inform the Judge of this latest development in POW’s financial affairs? Cue Julia Potts, Daniel Bainbridge, Tom Horwood, the Dunsfold Developer, the Secretary of State … Hello? Is anyone out there watching and listening to what’s going on under their noses?

The Waverley Web is no expert on the affairs – financial or otherwise – of Parish Councils but, helpfully, one of our readers is and she provided the following explanatory note for us:

‘I do know a thing or two about parish council finance and think this is worrying. I’ve had a little look at the APC website and I can tell you what is missing! The external auditor’s report has not been published – and the law requires that that should have been placed on the parish council’s website by 30 September. It is possible that the external auditor has not yet reported – the external auditor appointed to cover Surrey parishes has struggled with workload this year and some reports have been delayed (although I would have expected to see something to this effect published on the APC website by 30 September). The external auditor checks variances between years and asks for an explanation of significant differences – I’d love to see the explanation given here. I wonder how long it will be before the external audit report appears here with the rest of the annual accounts information? http://www.alfold.org/page12.html

So our question – and that of many other Waverley residents – is: Where is the external auditor’s report?

And, whilst we’re on the subject, a lot of people think Chairman Pigeon and Clerk Weddell have some explaining to do!

Rumours abound in the Alfold Barn and The Compasses, that Nik Pigeon is standing down as Chairman of Alfold Parish Council – before he’s pushed? – and Chris Britton (Cap’n Bob’s No2 at Protect our Little Corner) is going to be catapulted into his place.

What? WHAT? WHAT? we hear you say ... Well, it is only a rumour and we’d given it little credence to date – after all, what Parish Council in its right mind would elect a Chairman who hadn’t served a day, let alone six months as a Parish Councillor, in order to learn the ropes? But the mutter in the Alfold gutter is that Thakeham Homes – which may or may not have been contributing to POW’s coffers – is simply waiting for POW to get the Dunsfold Park decision thrown out by the High Court, before resuscitating its own application at Springbok. The plan, so we’ve been told, is to dust down the Springbok application and slap it in with slightly fewer homes, safe in the knowledge that if Waverley’s Local Plan goes down and the Dunsfold development with it, there will be a window of opportunity for other developers to fill the void and concrete over everywhere but the biggest brownfield site in the borough.

But of course, others may think that. The Waverley Web couldn’t-possibly comment. 

Nik Pigeon, who has previously admitted to a pecuniary interest in relation to the Springbok application, is thought to have been in favour of the scheme from the get-go and Chris Britton is happy to build anywhere in the Borough, absolutely anywhere, except at Dunsfold Aerodrome because his home, in Hall Place, overlooks the airfield. Poor old Awfold, talk about going from the frying pan into the fire … when it comes to Parish Council Chairman they’ve really hit bottom and yet, still they keep on digging!

So, there you have it, folks, another everyday tale of Country Folk … or do we mean Skullduggery in the Shires?

Watch this space for further developments (no pun intended!) and, in between times, keep checking the Awfold Parish Council website for the External Auditor’s Report.

A view from the gallery.


Unlike Waverley Web’s view from the rafters of The High Court of Justices – here’s…



Waverley Councillor Paul Follows said. “Something I am keen to do is try to bring some of these detailed but important subjects (that are often kept behind closed doors and not really discussed in public) into the open a bit more (so people are aware and can engage with them).”
I spent two days this week in the High Court observing Waverley and others (including Dunsfold Aerodrome Limited – (DAL) and the Secretary of State for Local Government and Housing) defending themselves against the challenges of CPRE (Campaign for the Protection of Rural England) and POW (Protect our Waverley).
In the gallery were a number of interested parties, but in terms of Councillors, the Conservative Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council were present for both days – plus me representing the Opposition at Waverley.

I urge anyone associated with the groups involved to correct me if I have misunderstood or misrepresented the arguments they presented. I may be guilty of over-simplifying things and I am not speaking on behalf of any of the groups involved – or even Waverley (as I am an Opposition councillor).
There is also A LOT of emotive history on this controversial issue – which as a new (ish) councillor I have not been involved, and probably I am unaware of some of the issues – so I will attempt to present this as a neutral account so far as I can.
on one ‘side,’ you have POW and CPRE.
POW is challenging the very existence of the Dunsfold site allocation of (2600)homes,  1,800 of which are consented, on a brownfield aerodrome, both included in the Local Plan). Their argument seemed to be based on a combination of the assessment of housing need and general issues about the site itself and the impact it would have.
CPRE seem to be arguing that the Local Plan (as currently passed) which includes the major modifications required by the Planning Inspector (Jonathon Bore) is subject to challenge because of the inclusion of part of Woking’s ‘unmet housing need.’ The basis, of which, they argue – is questionable and claim it was arbitrarily applied 50/50 to Waverley and to Guildford.
This increased the numbers that Waverley has to provide per year in the local plan and to meet that new number Waverley has added two new sites to the plan (both of which require their removal from Green Belt. One of which is in my  Godalming ward). They also challenged the evidence base regarding housing need – a subject I am interested in.

…And on the other ‘side’ – Waverley’s lawyer + the lawyers representing (DAL) and the secretary of state was defending a combination of some or all of the above.

I believe POW struggled to make its case to support its argument. Some of which couldn’t be made without rehashing the (already concluded and failed) Judicial Review (JR) of the Dunsfold application and decision. So it relied on housing numbers and Woking’s unmet need. From what I can see, up to 2600 houses were allocated in the local plan prior to the inspectors’ modifications – and the only change afterwards was the dropping of the words ‘up to’. I believe the planning application already allowed 2600 at this point anyway.
CPRE however made (…eventually…I’m afraid their case took their counsel some time to deliver) a more persuasive argument about the input from the Inspector.
in part because Its argument is not a million miles away from the arguments that I made at the local plan vote back at the start of the year (and in part why I didn’t vote for the plan). As I did – they take issue with the idea of taking the ‘unmet need’ from Woking – and they take issue with both the concept of why Waverley should take it AND how it was calculated. There is no way I can adequately or concisely go into the detail of their argument on the calculations (it took the best part of half a day for it to be put across).
The critical point here though is that CPRE were not wholly reliant upon Dunsfold to demonstrate changes and harm from the modifications to the local plan – the Green Belt sites in Binscombe and Aarons Hill were totally new and only added by the Inspector and as a direct result of the changes). To put it simply – they argue the inspector made an error with Woking’s unmet need and the evidence base for housing need – therefore leading to a local plan that is unsound.

Waverley and others sought to refute these points. On the Dunsfold matter – if the site were taken out of the local plan, as POW want – the housing numbers in the plan would still exist. Whatever the merits or demerits of that application – sites for 2600 houses would need to then be found in the Borough. It is such a strategic plank of the local plan – the consequences would be severe.

 I want to understand from these groups the nature of their objections – and I hope you contact me and give me an idea. Certainly, I am aware of the transport issues – but I would love to know more and some of the history. But I do understand the potential consequences to everywhere else if Dunsfold is removed from the plan?
With regards to CPRE.  The court discussed possible methods for which ‘relief’ could be offered (what could be done) if the CPRE arguments were substantiated. This could involve the court directing the numbers to be changed, sites being removed – or even the outright quashing of the local plan entirely. I think these outcomes though are ultimately quite unlikely.
It is yet to be determined (the judge will not actually rule for some time) if those arguments will be upheld and if Waverley should or should not have defended some of this. We know £300k was allocated for the defence.
Happy to answer any questions – if you got this far – thank you for reading!

Follow the money?



One way or another, I’m gonna getcha? 


It began so well. On the second day of the High Court Hearing into CPRE / POW’s challenge to the Secretary of State, Waverley Borough Council and the Dunsfold Developer, Julia Potts went from fabulous to fishnets.

Of course, there were fewer bums on seats in the public gallery – having turned out to cheer on team POW on day one, POW’s supporters didn’t bother turning up. Why would they? They’ve never been interested in listening to anyone’s arguments but their own.

Despite eloquent counter arguments from Wayne Beglan, on behalf of Waverley BC, David Elvin, for the Dunsfold Developer, and the Secretary of State’s barrister, the Judge appeared sympathetic to poor little David’s fight against Goliath. Yes, things appeared to be going swimmingly for Capt’n Bob and Co. 

Here the WW want to make something clear. We have never opposed residents’ right to challenge. In fact, we have applauded that right. However,  we believe in honesty. This protest group was set up for one purpose and one purpose only – to Dump Development at Dunsfold. Nothing else. If POW cannot tell the truth – others will tell it for you. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of OUR money, has been spent by 11 parish councils,  some even from across the Surrey/Sussex border.

Did anyone ask YOU?

Which takes us back to yesterday’s hearing when the Judge turned her attention to the Aarhus Convention (The public’s right to justice which limits costs to just £10,000). POW’s barrister only just stopped short of pulling out his violin as he painted a picture of brave little David’s hand-to-mouth existence, passing round the begging-bowl every time they needed to mount yet another challenge against the Big Bad Developer and Wolfish Waverley, neither of whom gave a fig for local residents, both of whom were only interested in concreting over a big brownfield site to the detriment of all those living nearby.

Smiling graciously, The High Court Judge looked sincere and almost reached for her handkerchief. 

Capt’n Bob Lies and Boy Britten’s fizzogs were wearing huge smiles clearly believing they were home and dry on the costs front whilst, in the public gallery,  La Potts and Ged Hall gnashed their teeth.

And then a miracle happened. The Dunsfold Developer’s junior brief leapt up and with a few well-placed words turned the tide.  Mr Turney said POW was a single-interest group that, despite pleading poverty, had been successfully raising huge sums of money in order to fight/stop any development at Dunsfold Park at every turn. He strongly suspected POW was a front for a few “high net worth individuals” who had promised to cough-up whatever it took to stop the Dunsfold development in its tracks while underwriting the whole shebang. Mr Turney’s prose was far more elegant than ours and issued in a mellifluous tone that, whilst soothing, held just the right degree of indignation to get the Judge’s attention.

The Judge said she couldn’t help but agree with Mr Turney’s assertion – backed up by Mr Beglan on behalf of his client – that there was a lack of transparency on POW’s part about where their financial resources were coming from? Looked suitably pained, PoW’s barrister said the Judge couldn’t be suggesting that poor little David was trying to hide anything? POW simply lurched from one fundraising event to the next, raising dribs and drabs, against all the odds, as the need arose.

M T. was having none of it saying POW had raised vast sums in order to mount a challenge at the Public Inquiry. It was then the Judge’s sympathy began to wane and Capt’n Bob’s smile evaporated like Scotch mist when she said she was leaning towards proposing full disclosure from POW in relation to their funding sources. PoW co-ordinators Chris Britton and Alan Ground looked fit for the ground to swallow them. 

PoW’s Rumpole appealed again, surely not, the Judge couldn’t really mean it! But Mr Turney had shone a light on POW’s dirty little secret, revealing not the slightly dented, second-hand petty cash tin they claimed to keep their sparse funds in but a dirty great safety deposit box full of filthy lucre!

Apparently, they weren’t counting Doris’s pennies; why would they when, as Mr Turney disclosed, a small group of wealthy well-wishers were writing gold-plated cheques to the tune of £15,000 – £20,000 a pop with a flourish of their Mont Blancs!

 Whose to say same wealthy donors hadn’t egged POW on, agreeing to underwrite all their costs, whilst, at the same time, urging them to try to gain protection from Aahrus thus ensuring that the Waverley Tax Payer ended up footing the bill for POW’s largesse?

Mr Turney didn’t allude to it but the mutter in the Waverley gutter, which has been gaining momentum in recent weeks, reveals at least one devious developer is bank-rolling POW in order to stop development at Dunsfold Park to give his own sites, elsewhere in the Borough, a better chance of succeeding. A strategy right up POW’s lane as they don’t care what’s developed elsewhere in the Borough as long as it’s not on their doorstep!

And isn’t that’s exactly what happened in the case of Mr & Mrs House over at Milford? Their challenge, which was thrown out at the first hurdle, was funded by a developer eager to build in Godalming!

Against a background of excited chatter from the public gallery and red faces in POW’s camp, the Judge instructed the POW’s Rumpole that his clients had seven days in which to provide a full witness statement in relation to their funding arrangements/donations going back to the publication of Inspector Bore’s report. 

In the meantime, our advice to Dear Doris. Save your pennies for POW has no need of them. You and any other unsuspecting pensioner who’s donated precious funds they can ill afford have been deceived.

POW’s is a front for some serious High Rollers who don’t want development on their doorsteps but on someone else’s and are hellbent on ensuring it goes anywhere but Dunsfold and at taxpayer’s expense!  

In the meantime, we at the Waverley Web look forward to seeing how the Sorry Advertiser –  report The Great Dunsfold Dust Off.  Whose own High Roller boss lives on the boundary of Dunsfold Aerodrome  A “high worth’ individual who just happens to live so near he could spit at the airfield from his £8m and reducing, country pile.

Alfold Parish Council couldn’t possibly be acting as Banker – could it? No, not really, never?

We’re in the (unexplained) money!!

We’re in the (unexplained) money!!


The Waverley Web has been contacted by a concerned Alfold resident whose husband nearly choked on his cornflakes and uttered an expletive which, she assures us, has never passed his lips before in her hearing – ‘WTF!!!’


Pardon our Russian, but we’re only repeating what we’ve been told!  Apparently, the gentleman in question was perusing the accounts of the parish council, as he does every year – because that’s the type of person he is – and he noticed a major discrepancy.  So MAJOR at first he thought it must be a typo or had someone put the decimal point in the wrong place???

For, according to the January 9th 2018 budget, this tiny parish council which, in a normal year, has a turnover of £35,000 and, in the previous year, had grants and donations of £14,850, had received grants and donations of £276,400. and, even more staggeringly, had spent the entire sum on legal fees!!!


WTF indeed!!!!!!!!!!

Who on earth is bank-rolling Alfold Parish Council to the tune of £276,400?   Its’ annual precept is around £25,000 and that money is usually swallowed up dealing with ditches, hedges and dog shit!  Anyone attending Alfold Parish Council meetings, even on an irregular basis, will know that Pooper-Scooping at the playground is a permanent preoccupation for the Parish Councillors and leads to much animated (pardon the pun!) discussion.


The full accounts can be found by clicking  here.


Has Alfold PC, unbeknown to its parishioners, given up scooping the poop and scooped the Lotto?  Or has someone died and left them a legacy?  And did they spend the lot desperately defending their scoop when disgruntled rellies contested the will?

Can anyone throw any light on what’s going on in Alfold – shortly to change its name to Kerchingold?!  Or, are we going to have to file for an Unexplained Wealth Order?  You know us here at the Waverley Web, we’re always on trend!

The next Alfold Parish Meeting will take place on.  Or will Nick Pidgeon have lived up to his name and taken flight?  But, even if he has, we’re sure the very competent Clerk, Crystal Tipps Weddell, will have an explanation.

Will it be rather embarrassing for Chairman Nik Pidgeon Partner at lawyers Charles Russell Speechlys? His Chairman’s 2018 report on the Local Plan said:

“In respect of Dunsfold Park, again we made representations during the planning process, and with the Joint Parish Councils, were represented at the Public Inquiry following the Call-In by the Secretary of State of the planning permission that was granted.
All this involved much work and expense. (WWethinks quite a lot of work and expense!!) Thanks in particular to Beverley for her assistance in keeping this organised. 

Yet there was NO mention of thanks to their donor of A QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS FOR LEGAL FEES?

We look forward to hearing from Alfold residents at mailtocontact@waverleyweb.org

Alfold Chairman’s Report: http://www.alfold.org/APC%20Draft%20MINUTES%208.5.18.pdf

Alfold 2017/2018 Budget: http://www.alfold.org/Annual%20Budget%20-%20By%20Combined%20Account%20Code%2030.11.17.PDF

The WW has just received a comment to : contact@waverleyweb.org  from an Alfold man very concerned that his comments may somehow be traced back to him! What are people afraid of in that village, we wonder? However, although we vet comments before they are published to prevent defamatory statements. We want to assure all our readers that unless you wish for your real name to be disclosed, and wish to use s pseudonym we pledge would never reveal your identity. However, although you may comment, we must ensure that we know your comment are from a bona fide correspondents.


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


Will Haslemere residents do what they did last time, even though the sitting Tory they are replacing hasn’t shown up for a year?

Or will they bring some balance back into Haslemere Town Council to-day and elect three councillors who will truly represent their views and end the Tory domination of a  council that had wanted to co-opt more Tories into its ranks?


DAVIDSON Jerome (Lib Dem) says: “As a long-term resident, I am concerned that Hindhead and Beacon Hill often seem to be treated as poor relations by the council. Obviously, that wasn’t helped by the previous Conservative councillor Alex Ford, who didn’t attend a single meeting in the year following his election.

“Hindhead deserve better representation than that, which I am determined to offer. I would push for a better bus service for Hindhead – one that is co-ordinated with train times in the morning and a service that doesn’t end in the middle of the evening.”

Perhaps residents should take a look at what one candidate thinks off-record about another town and village in Waverley?

Be patient it does take a second or two to load, but it is well worth the wait. Don’t vote until you have heard it – scroll down to the video clip that didn’t get away.

As two of Your Waverley councillors sneer and deride the villages of Ewhurst and Cranleigh, officers are daft enough to remove the incriminating remarks from U-Tube.

Screen Shot 2018-10-05 at 14.09.38.pngHaslemereTCnominations


The Final Countdown?


The phone lines between Waverley East and West hummed last night as those who attended the first day of the High Court battle between PoW and it’s bosom buddies CPRE versus Waverley Borough Council and the Secretary of State chewed the fat over the wires.

 It was Ground Hog Day with all the usual suspects present and correct in Court 76 – the same tired old room in the nether regions of the High Court that hosted the first Hearing earlier in the year. WW animated-spider-image-0157just hung on in there…

Cast List
La Potts was a resplendent Josephine in a technicolour dream coat boasting colours of the rainbow – red and yellow and green and blue … and put the more conservative Liz-the-Biz, Daniel Bainbridge, Tom Horwood and Paul Fellows in the shade. Although Denise Le Gal, Waverley’s Mayor, did her best to rival La Potts by turning up late in Leopard Print!

Alan & Sarah Ground – still, to their chagrin, of The Old Rectory on The Green. Regular readers will be aware they’ve been trying to flog their Dunsfold pile since March but, sadly for them, there are no takers. That’s what happens when you spend 15 years dissing your neighbours. You’d have thought they’d have realised that given their collaborator in Stop Dunsfold Park New Town (Rupert Howell of Trinity Mirror and Sorry Advertiser fame) has been trying and failing to sell his bigger and better pile, adjacent to the airfield, on and off for years now.

Bob Lies, CEO of Protect our Little Corner, huddled on the back bench next to instructing solicitors.

John Jefferies, a PoW supporter, rocked up late and plonked himself down next to Dunsfold Park’s legal team. Had the boot been on the other foot, you can bet your bottom dollar, PoW would have been hollering ‘Spys in the camp’ from the High Court turrets but the Dunsfold Developer clearly couldn’t give a toss.

The Judge, refreshing young – not in the first flush, we understand, but young for a member of the judiciary – was female and clearly mistress of her brief and keen to lose no time in getting the ball rolling.

First up was The Grinch – oops! we mean The Stinch – on behalf of Protect our Little Corner.

Predictably, he had nothing new to say and bored the pants off everyone by harking back – yet again – to 2009 when permission to develop housing at Dunsfold Park was ‘emphatically refused’ because the site was ‘inherently unsustainable’. Oh, change the record do! The world’s moved on since 2009 but, clearly, The Stinch hasn’t. All his harking-back revealed he had nothing new to say and was relying on old arguments that have been repeatedly and soundly rebuffed, thrown out both by Waverley’s Planners and the Secretary of State no less.

By mid-morning, we’re told, even the Judge had had enough and was beginning to bore of his arguments. The Stinch bandied numbers around like confetti as he tried to justify his badly mangled argument which boiled down to PoW’s contention that Inspector Bore had started with the wrong figure in relation to Woking Borough Council’s unmet need and because the figure was wrong he had no business allocating 50% of it to Waverley. The Judge seemed unconvinced, questioning whether The Stinch was trying to argue that a 50:50 split on its own was wrong in law?

 PoW looked pained as the Judge sliced and diced The Stinch’s waffle and cut to the chase. They weren’t remotely interested in Waverley’s housing numbers per se, they were simply interested in stopping housing development at Dunsfold Park, at any cost, and if crying foul over housing numbers helped them achieve that goal that was all they cared about, regardless of the outcome for the rest of the Borough which could well end up without the protection of a Local Plan by the time they’re finished!

Then up came Mr Westway on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England – that’s the bunch who’s nationwide cri de coeur is ‘Brownfield first’ everywhere … except at Dunsfold! They’d rather Waverley built all over green fields and greenbelt than laid a single brick on the Borough’s largest brownfield site.

If the Judge was bored by The Stinch, her Clerk’s eyes glazed over listening to Mr Westway. Indeed, so did everyone else, when the Judge livened things up by accusing Mr Westway of ‘trying to argue the inarguable’ and levying ‘very unfair criticism at Inspector Bore’ but Mr Westway was unrepentant and well and truly cooked his goose when the Judge explained to him, very gently, that she knew where he was coming from and where he was trying to get to and he really didn’t need to spell out every single syllable of his argument for her as she had – ahem – read her brief! Unfortunately, the Patronising Puppy didn’t take the hint, droning on for another hour. By the end of his oration, the Grounds were dozing on each other’s shoulder, Bob Lies had his head in his hands and those on the opposing side had given up all pretence of polite attention and were busily tapping away on their ipads, catching up on the day job.

Wayne Beglan, for Waverley Borough Council, finally got to his feet mid-afternoon but the main thrust of his argument and that of the Secretary of State and the Dunsfold Developer will have to wait until today. 

What of Aarhus we hear you ask? We know many of you are very anxious to know if you, the Waverley Council Tax Payer, will have to pick up Protect our Little Corner’s costs or whether the Judge will rule – as Waverley Borough Council and the Secretary of State contend – they pick up their own. The Judge deferred this decision to the end of the Hearing, at which point we understand Capt’n Bob and his cohort, Chris Britten, rushed for the loos, leaving skid marks in their wake!

Who knows, by this time tomorrow it could be mi casa es su casa! And if that’s the case maybe Messrs Lies and Britten will bugger off and bother some other borough!

Or maybe not, for rumour has it Protect our Little Corner is still being incredibly reticent about the source of its funding and the mutter in the gutter is that’s because another local developer has been funding them in order to knock out Dunsfold Park thus ensuring his own plans to develop other sites elsewhere in the borough – Godalming –  stand a better chance of success …

To be continued … gossip and South-West trains willing!!!

Long awaited plans for new healthcare facilities in Cranleigh to be submitted. WHEN exactly?


This is an announcement on the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust Website – which has now been re-named The Cranleigh Private Nursing Home website?

Screen Shot 2018-09-17 at 12.27.29.png

Please note this announcement is dated 21st October 2016. So what exactly has gone wrong? You can read more here: Are there plans afoot to bring Cranleigh traffic to a standstill?:

Although THE CHARITY WEBSITE says – read more – you really won’t want to because the website is full of obfuscation and misinformation. 

Despite assurances from the charity new private nursing home to be operated by HC-One that a planning application has been imminent for two years – we ain’t seen nothin yet! Though the WW has heard the new plans will go on display later this month, Presumably with the news that…

SURPRISE, SURPRISE! ITS PARTNER HC-ONE HAS BEEN PUT UP FOR SALE BEFORE THE INK IS DRY ON THE SHODDY DEAL!  A deal with fills the coffers of Surrey County Council, through the sale of its nursing home site at Longfields in Cranleigh,  Assists with Guildford & Waverley CCG’s bed blocking problems for its 37 GP practices in yes, you guessed – GUILDFORD AND WAVERLEY – by including 10 NHS beds.

So now Cranleigh and the surrounding villages are asking – Please Sir – can we have our money back – over £1m quid of it, before it drops into Mr Chai Patel’s trousers with the other £1billion?


Screen Shot 2018-10-08 at 20.01.27.png

No wonder Dr Chai Patel looks so smug. He must think he has struck gold – Cranleigh and the surrounding village’s gold from the public’s pockets.  Cranleigh Parish Council’s gold – a piece of land for which it didn’t even receive twenty pieces of silver. Just a peppercorn pound and a bit of agricultural land  – now a playing field – adjacent to which the charity now wants to put in a pay and display car park!

Screen Shot 2018-10-08 at 20.01.58.pngScreen Shot 2018-10-08 at 20.02.14.png


Screen Shot 2018-10-08 at 20.40.12.png


Screen Shot 2018-10-08 at 20.40.45.png

Will the new Cranleigh Care Home be sold off before it is even built?


Have the residents of Cranleigh and the surrounding villages been duped? Has the parish council been duped? And will this, combined with all the other development going on, bring Cranleigh’s traffic to a halt?

One Alfold resident has already written to the Waverley Web suggesting it should all go to DUNSFOLD. Does he mean the Dunsfold that is today fighting a Judicial Review in the High Court?

Screen Shot 2018-10-08 at 20.02.34.pngScreen Shot 2018-10-08 at 20.03.18.png



Are there plans afoot to bring Cranleigh traffic to a standstill?


The Cranleigh Village Nursing Home Trust – previously known as the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust – has been told by health officials it can no longer refer to its £38m development, with a private provider, as A ‘HOSPITAL’.

Poised to submit plans to build a 60-bed private nursing home for HC-ONE on land in Knowle Lane – which was once owned by the people of Cranleigh and for which it paid, £1! Yes, you did read that right, they paid the princely sum of ONE POUND for land that was valued by the District Valuer at £175,000!!!

Anger is now mounting amongst local residents who raised funds for a project that has strayed so far from its original dream, it has become something of a local nightmare! Not only for CVNT but for Cranleigh Parish Council, Cranleigh residents and now possibly, even Waverley Borough Council?

Q: Why?

A: Because Waverley Planners  could be faced with determining a planning application for a scheme that was originally intended as a replacement for Cranleigh Village Hospital but which has now morphed into:

• A Private nursing home – with beds priced at the market rate!
• 10 social care beds for Surrey County Council, which allows The County Council to flog off the Longfield Nursing Home site and trouser the cash! Longfield was a council run home once housing over 50 elderly residents and a specialist Dementia unit. 
• 10 community NHS beds – but those beds won’t be for the exclusive use of Cranleigh residents. Oh no! They will be available to anyone within the Guildford & Waverley CCG Area’s 37 GP practices!

And, which could now affect its aim to build a new – much bigger Leisure Centre.



Screen Shot 2018-10-08 at 07.10.33.png

Says the Cranleigh Village Society?.


• Over £1m raised for a replacement Village Hospital came from men, women,  children, clubs, and local businesses in Cranleigh and the surrounding villages; it was never intended for the use of patients of 37 practices which make up the entire G & W CCG!

Screen Shot 2018-10-05 at 19.47.35

The area shaded in blue covers the Guildford & Waverley CCG area

• In addition, the CVNT, intend to build a block of 26 apartments, adjacent to the three-storey building behind Wiskar Drive and M&S Foods – also on land once owned by the parish and designated by Waverley as an area of Strategic Visual Importance. This now includes an access over the Snoxhall Playing Fields directly onto the already beleaguered Knowle Lane – for which it paid the Parish Council – yes, you guessed it: Zilch!! Allegedly these apartments are ear-marked for “key workers”. But whose key workers? The WW hears, if that isn’t enough, CVNT wants an access over the Downslink – the very same route which Waverley intends to keep sacrosanct should the railway return to Cranleigh.All aboard the Cranleigh express?

Now here’s the rub.

Knowle Lane has a narrow access onto Cranleigh High Street. Traffic backs up there constantly because Kerbside Garage, living up to its name, has a consistent flow of customers who all park on the kerbside, thus reducing the narrow two-lane road to an even narrower one-lane!

Incredibly, juggernauts delivering to both M&S and Sainsbury’s go in either side of the lane, creating yet more, chaos. Oh, and and the icing on the cake is the lane regularly floods! You couldn’t make it up, really you couldn’t!

Almost directly opposite the proposed access to the new nursing home is the recently created entrance into the new Berkeley Homes housing estate – 450 homes consented, 55 of which are accessed off Knowle Lane, almost directly opposite the entrance to M&S’s carpark, Wiskar Drive, Lynn Murray & Associates solicitors and several High Street shops rear entrances.

According to our followers over there in the East, Cranleigh’s old Village Hospital has been smartened up by the League of Friends for ambulatory patients – many thousands of them in the future accessing the services of X-Ray, consultant-led clinics and a proposed MRI scanner. Will these patients come from the CCG area?

And now, the cherry on the cake, Waverley BC has pledged to spend £12m on a new leisure centre to serve Cranleigh New Town! And all of this is the same, small congested area between Village Way and the lane between Bet Fred and Boots!

And, just to add a little spice to the mix, the Devious Dutch Developer behind The Knowle Park Initiative, Nicholas Vrijjland – formerly known as the Lettuce King – wants to build a car park in Knowle Lane adjacent to the Bruce McKenzie field, which he swapped with the parish but which he has nicely wrapped up and tied with a bow, into a Ransome strip!

In addition to clogging up Cranleigh High Street the Devious Dutch Developer is currently clogging up Alfold Road in Elmbridge, where he’s flogged off his former lettuce nursery to A1Dominion – a director of which just happens to be – yes, you guessed it – a director of CVNT, one Andy Leafy. Leafy who is preparing to build 265 homes on the old lettuce nursery, and 26 on the nursing home site, which he and the Devious Dutch Developer claim is all about improving the lives of Cranleigh folk! We think they mean improving the lives of themselves whilst lining their pockets at the expense of Cranleigh folk!

Now the locals are screaming – ‘Anyone want to buy my home in the village that Waverley Planners dubbed “Poor Old Cranleigh?’

Is this Charity fulfilling the expectations of the people of Cranleigh and the surrounding villages? Is it fulfilling its charitable objects? And, has Cranleigh Parish Council achieved Best Value for its residents? Has it acted responsibly?

There are many unanswered questions? Perhaps these will be answered over the coming weeks as the Charity lodges its planning application and holds a public consultation exercise?

If not – why not?



Waverley’s residents are becoming increasingly concerned about rising crime.


In and around the borough’s towns and villages, crime is rising – and in most instances, the police are turning a blind eye!

Postings on the borough’s popular Community Boards, Facebook and comments received by the WW – are highlighting rising crime and vandalism, some of it serious and life-threatening.

Ballbearings fired into moving vehicles is now becoming the latest dangerous sport. Although so far the damage has been mainly financial, it is only a question of time before a driver, or passenger is hit, resulting in serious consequences. 

There are dozens of instances, of crime, petty and some very serious.   Theft of cars in Alfold, Farnham, and Godalming are becoming a daily occurrence. Bikes chained to posts are being hacked from their moorings, including one treasured bike from outside The Cranleigh Co-op. Windows in cars and homes are being smashed, field gates stolen and outbuildings ransacked. 

We are printing just one account from one resident of the Surrey/Sussex border village of Alfold – but this is magnified by hundreds of incidents right across the borough.



Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 19.07.17.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 11.28.33.png

Now here’s a great suggestion. LET’S ALL RING ANNE AND JEREMY?

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 11.27.12.png


And so it goes on.. and on

Screen Shot 2018-10-01 at 11.26.54.png

All aboard the Cranleigh express?


It came as a bit of a shock to Cranleigh’s borough and parish council when they heard that Waverley’s councillor for Hambledon & Witley is meeting rail bosses next week in a bid to bring the railway line back to Cranleigh. Now its the turn of Cranleigh ‘New Town’s business leaders to jump on the bandwagon.

Is this MP Anne Milton’s worst nightmare coming true? She has stated publicly that she believes that if the line is re-opened the massive expansion of Cranleigh will continue – unabated.

Screen Shot 2018-09-18 at 20.10.51.png

Can’t see any mention of Cranleigh though?

Cllr Holder, a former borough councillor for Dunsfold told his Waverley colleagues he meets the Managing Directors of Network Rail SW Trains and Foreign Secretary,  MP for SW Surrey Jeremy Hunt. at Westminster on Wednesday, October 9. They will be discussing the borough’s “infrastructure” issues including the introduction of the Cranleigh to Guildford railway line. A line axed in the 60’s but the route of which forms the Downslink and which has now been protected by the borough council in its Local Plan Part 2, should it return.

No doubt the parish council will be writing to Cllr Holder in the hope that he may enlighten him before the residents of Cranleigh start buying their season tickets in the hope of jumping on the new Cranleigh Express? Perhaps they are in talks with the Chamber of Trade too?

We hope they tell Bramley’s By-Pass Byham too, who may need a heart by-Pass if faced with the prospect of telling his constituents, who may foam at the mouth when they hear that trains could be heading their way?

Councillor Holder will also be rattling rail bosses cages, due to concerns that passengers travelling from Haslemere/Witley/Godalming are forced to stand on their journeys to and from London!

Aren’t we all? Particularly the poor devils like us at the WW who travel to the city, and arrive worn out before the working day even begins and then do the same at the end of a hard day’s work, including writing the Waverley Web in our lunch-hour, because we can’t get a seat on the train!!

Now the Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce has jumped on the train wagon. In its latest missive it says:

Should the railway between Shoreham and Guildford, through Cranleigh, be reopened?

That’s the question being posed by the English Regional Transport Association (ERTA).

They are a voluntary membership-based, pro-public transport improvement association with its main projects initially in the Bedfordshire and surrounding regional areas, but now increasing its remit since several projects had a nation-wide positive benefit and impact.

Membership of ERTA is now open to all.

One of its proposals is to reopen the railway that used to run between Guildford, Cranleigh and Horsham, where much of the old trackbed survives.

ERTA will be holding a public meeting (forum) to-day Saturday 6th October 2018 from 1pm to 4pm at the Rodboro Buildings, 1-10 Bridge Street, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 4RY. Members of the Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce have been invited to attend.

Commenting on the proposals, we said:

“The Chamber of Commerce will watch with interest the proposal to reopen the line. However, it will take considerable local and national political will and a large government purse to overcome the logistical and cost challenges presented in face of the most optimistic forecasts of passenger numbers.

“Recognising these challenges we recently commissioned research from Sustrans to work out the costs of upgrading the line to an all-weather surface allowing shared use for walkers, horses, the disabled and cyclists. The costs to bring the track up to the standards of other shared greenways across the UK are a tiny fraction of the cost to reopen the line to rail.

“We would encourage the county councils of Surrey and West Sussex to seriously consider upgrading the whole Downs Link from Guildford to Shoreham.”

Presumably, the footfall predicted from 1,700 new homes now under construction is not enough for Cranleigh businesses? Or are they, like Councillor Holder, hoping that the Chinese will be arriving on Cranleigh’s Platform 1 to jump on  The Flying Scotsman sometime soon?

Here’s his shock announcement.

Cllr Holder to the rescue! He’ll be solving our trains … a new railway line for Cranleigh, and boosting Chinese tourism!

17.11.29 – Beeching lines may reopen…to boost housebuilding copy

How now POW’s (cash) cow?


Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 18.51.12.pngIs the milk about to go sour in POW’s Brown Cow?

Forced to play Russian Roulette with their homes, by the High Court’s refusal to grant them the protection of the Aarhus Convention (People’s Access to Justice) in advance of the Hearing  relating to Waverley’s Housing numbers next week our mole inside the PoW camp tells us),  Protect our Waverley is becoming increasingly desperate in their attempts to avert a potential catastrophe.

Bob Lies and Co’s costs may not be limited to the £10,000 it had hoped under the convention mentioned above, but they will not know until the Judge has ruled on the day.

As our Dunsfold Correspondent points out, this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘Mi casa su casa’! Protect our Little Corner of the Borough has penned yet another open letter to Waverley Borough Council, literally begging it to allow POW to save face:

30th September 2018
Dear Councillor Potts and Mr Horwood


POW is writing to ask you to withdraw the defence of the housing numbers in Part 1 of the Local Plan in the interests of all the residents of the Borough.

Conceding our case will allow WBC to re-calculate the numbers on the basis of the new household projections published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) on 20th September 20181. Barton Willmore has calculated 2, using the new NPPF ‘Standard Method’, that the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for Waverley is 27% lower than the Government’s comparable figure based on 2014 data 3. Over the 19 year Plan period, this equates to a very significant reduction of over 3,000 dwellings.

Furthermore, these calculations show that Woking’s unmet need has disappeared.

You have both claimed that if CPRE and POW succeed in their challenge, then the Local Plan will fall and the protections it provides will be removed. That fear is unfounded.

There is legal precedence that part of a Plan can be changed without affecting the remainder. In the case of William Davis Ltd and Others v Charnwood Borough Council (2017), Gilbart J concluded: “I am not willing to strike down other policies whose provenance was not contested before me. I shall, therefore, limit the relief granted to the quashing of that policy.”
A lower OAN will make it easier to meet the 5 year supply requirement, adding additional protection against unwanted and inappropriate development in the longer term.
WBC must avail itself of this unique opportunity to revise down its housing numbers presented by the High Court Challenges being brought by CPRE and POW, rather than wait until the 5-year review of the Plan in 2023. If it fails to do this, large sections of our beautiful Borough will be ruined by unneeded development – on Green Belt, on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Areas of Great Landscape Value – and future residents will be condemned to live in totally unsustainable locations.

Your duty, as political leader and Chief Executive of Waverley Borough Council respectively, is to protect the interests of Waverley’s residents, now and in the future. You will singularly fail in that duty if you do not take advantage of this unique opportunity to make an early amendment to Part 1 of your Local Plan by conceding the s113 Appeal. The benefits of adopting the reduced quota are significant – both for your Council and your electorate.

Yours sincerely

Bob Lees

cc Uncle Tom Cobbley et al.

Interesting that this missive was penned – no doubt in some haste! – after PoW’s latest Pass-the-Begging-Bowl-Bash at The Sun Inn on Dunsfold Common last week. The Waverley Web attended the event and, bearing in mind the number of cobwebs in the cavernous ceiling of The Sun, Incy-Wincy may well have gone undetected … 

But, given Capt’n Bob is – yet again – appealing to Waverley to surrender to PoW’s bobleesdemands and ditch the High Court battle PoW started (!), we can only assume the Fund Raiser didn’t go too well  and Capt’n Bob is desperate not to have to employ the services of Cranleigh Removals at Casa Lees!

The WW is beginning to feel almost sorry for him. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t!

Scenario 1: He can’t tell the High Court Judge – hand on heart – that he represents the majority of residents in the Borough – as he likes to brag! – if he doesn’t have a bank balance bursting with local residents’ contributions to prove it! After all, where is all this alleged support if the raggle-taggle PoW is surviving hand-to-mouth?

Scenario 2:  On the other hand, if he can and does demonstrate that he’s well funded by his enthusiastic and numerous supporters – rather than just a handful of high-rollers who object to the pollution of their Surrey Hills by an influx of affordable housing for the great unwashed (or, to paraphrase OJ, AKA Charles William Orange Esq of Hascombe Place, who objects to the creation of ‘a sink estate’ on his doorstep at Dunsfold Park) and write big cheques – then why shouldn’t the Judge insist PoW funds its own beef with Waverley BC rather than the Tax Payer having to foot the bill for them?

Oh what a tangled web POW  weaves whilst practising to deceive!


Quelle surprise! The Bats​ have abandoned Blightwells – just in time for demolition​ to begin​?


The bat population of Brightwells packed their belongings and left … all in the name of progress?

Waverley planners are not bats, they are devious, dishonourable, and don’t even obey their own YES men/women!

Farnham Cinema (GONE), Farnham Theatre (GONE), Open Air Swimming Pool (GONE), Trees (GONE), Tennis Courts (GONE), Bowling Green (GONE), BATS (GONE)


All sacrificed on the altar of developer/local authority greed? Will the batty decision made last night see Farnham’s Bats result in the same fate for the fall of this historic town as that predicted if the Ravens leave the Tower of London?


Screen Shot 2018-10-03 at 07.24.22.png

The Ravens of the Tower of London are a group of at least six captive ravens which live at the Tower of London. Their presence is traditionally believed to protect the Crown and the tower; a superstition holds that “if the Tower of London ravens are lost or fly away, the Crown will fall and Britain with it”.

Despite a prediction by Councillor Carole Cockburn of “traffic chaos” – but, all in a good cause – and claims by Farnham Residents Councillor Gerry Hyman that Waverley continues breaking the  law by not carrying out proper environmental, traffic and air quality assessments, it is now full speed ahead, for a development which has been in gestation for over 20 years.

By the way, who did bosh the bats? Set fire to the Ivy at The Redgrave Theatre? Was it Adam or was it Eve?

The demolition of Brightwell’s Cottage, complete with its bats, “which don’t exist” according to CONFIDENTIAL reports, and if they do, will be encouraged to live on boxes up appropriately coloured bat poles, can now proceed unhindered.  In fact, the perfectly phased development will take place at exactly the same time as the demolition of  Farnham’s “most hated building” The Woolmead which is also set to commence this month. From that development alone 80 HGV movements a day are anticipated through Farnham.  The Surrey-based demolition and groundworks specialist Wooldridge Group said: “We are pleased to share with you a new contract awarded to Wooldridge Demolition, in Farnham, Surrey. Multiple commercial and retail units to be cleared for residential properties and more shops. 

So works on the Woolmead will clash with the construction of Waverley Borough Council’s adjacent ‘Brightwells Yard’ development!

Brilliant co-ordinated planning that? Wonder how many more Farnham shops will close?

The 11-week lane closure on the A31 has now begun and the construction of Brightwells’ temporary access bridge. Waverley’s development partner Crest Nicholson estimates more than 200 HGV movements – on average three a day required to undertake the works. Add this to the 80 HGV movements per day Berkeley Homes estimates will be required during the four-month demolition of the nearby Woolmead, with around 2,000 HGV movements in total expected during the initial basement excavation phase of around eight months. Result = chaos?

 Berkeley Homes was granted full planning permission in July to replace The Woolmead, with a new block of 138 apartments (non-affordable) above more than 4,000 square metres of shops and restaurants.

Even throwing a last-minute spanner into the works by suggesting that Crest Nicholson may not legally own, or have a legal interest in the land in Borelli Walk required for the bridge, did not deter the Tory-dominated council from giving the go-ahead by 17 votes to one last night – Wednesday. In fact, Oh Carole suggested the meeting to discuss the issue was a waste of everyone’s time  accusing  a colleague of using ‘delaying tactics.’

However, the committee was forced to concede,  if it was found that the developer did not have a legal interest in the site. Permission would be refused for what officers described “as the minor non-material amendment” to a development which  Leader Julia Potts said was as put a new heart into Farnham Town Centre.

Where exactly is Farnham’s beating heart?

Screen Shot 2018-10-03 at 18.41.05.png

Why the hell Waverley planning experts couldn’t determine that little legal loophole before the meeting is anyone’s guess? It’s only taken 20 years to get a financial backer for a scheme which has been hoiked around the City and shunned by private investors for so long, it has become as stale as last month’s kippers! And despite the stink kicked up by Farnham people, Surrey County Council and Pension Fund Trustee and WBC councillor Denise Le Gal –  rescued our rotten borough with over £30m of OUR MONEY.

One financially strapped council bales out another?

But fear not Officers including Betty Boot said repeatedly – “we are satisfied” with our recommendation to approve this minor amendment so the bridge can now be constructed from the A31, and, “I am satisfied” we are acting legally, and “I am satisfied” that bat’s don’t exist in Blightwells and, “I am satisfied” with all the Environmental Impact Assessments and the CONFIDENTIAL bat surveys.

 She’s satisfied so that’s ok then, Isn’t it?

Here’s what one of our followers had to say: “Apparently the last look at the Maternity Roost had cobwebs and little to suggest recent occupation – I wonder Why???

It isn’t difficult to scare Bats they are timid gentle creatures …. But they do come back to roost eventually… and something better than those Cr*ppy Bat roosts should have been insisted on regardless of the state of the Maternity Roost in the Cottage.
They simply do not care.


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


The tales from various ladies at political and community events are coming in thick and fast…

mrtickle.jpgGodalming’s Surrey County Councillor Peter Martin resigns as Chairman.

But you know – if you’re a Tory in True Blue Surrey, you can get away with almost anything? Unless, of course, if Miss Backlash gets to hear of it?





And here at the Waverley Web, we have heard more… and we are tickled pink, so much so, we fell off our web.animated-spider-image-0201


Yes, Mr Wylde of Farnham – how WILL ‘Your Waverley’ meet its challenges?


Probably by continuing to ignore you, us here at the Waverley Web, and every other bit of voting fodder?

But at least the WW has been mentioned in your despatches!

 Someone has unmasked you as being -THE Waverley Web.


David Wylde (left, of the Farnham Five at the High Court) is not the only one to question the honesty, transparency and its claim to ‘use its resources wisely.’   in Waverley Borough Council’s Mission Statement.

This is his recent letter to The Farnham Herald letters page…

– In the last year or so, every national press article I can find and every media interview I have heard about the High Street has put across the same message – restaurants and retail are in crisis and the best solution is to offer leisure and entertainment attractions to draw in the punters – shopping and eating are no longer enough.

The relentless onward advance of internet shopping is the white-elephant-in-the-room for East Street, with the added problem that the Woolmead development, with 11 outlets lying along Farnham’s main street, is due on stream before its rival on the other side of the road, a scheme that lies down a straggling narrow alley off the beaten track and which has struggled unavailingly for five years to fill more than two of its 24 retail and eight restaurant outlets. A six-screen cinema with seats for 750 doesn’t help. The Woolmead getting in first will make it even harder than before to attract retailers.

May I invite the leader of Waverley, courtesy of the letters page of The Herald, to tell us how the council plans to confront this challenge? Does it have creative ideas for providing replacement community assets, if and when, as seems ever more likely, restaurants and retail falter? Or does it believe that, uniquely across the country, it can buck this trend? If so, what is the hard evidence, as opposed to the wishful thinking?
If you ring Waverley and ask what the weather is like in Godalming, the answer is likely to be based on the assumption that it is a secret (unfair to the excellent reception staff at the council, but I hope you get the drift) so it is hardly likely Waverley will tell the likes of me, or the likes of you for that matter, who owns the leases. I find out what I can where I can, often from a wonderful blog called

Waverley Web (see below).

In this instance, I have gathered CNS has ducked out and has left the headache of unproductive leases to Waverley and/or Surrey.
If I was the portfolio holder for Surrey, I would be seriously worried about putting big dollops of money into what is little more than a bunch of shops with flats on top and dubious prospects. The scheme was old fashioned and outdated then. It is antediluvian now. Are not we, whose taxes will pick up the tab, at the very least entitled to know Waverley is taking proper precautions to protect our interests and our pockets in challenging times, by doing good contingency planning? It would be worrying indeed if the council was burying its head in the sand.
If Waverley is tempted to argue that it would undermine its sales pitch to potential retailers to publicly prepare for the opposite outcome to the one it is hoping for, have a look for a moment at the national scene, where the government is in the process of producing public contingency plans for an outcome – no deal – which is the opposite of its official policy, the Chequers proposals. Its contingency planning seems to have been generally accepted as good sense and good practice; were Waverley to do the equivalent, I suggest the reaction would be the same.

The world of retail is changing radically and forever, so we need a council that will change and adapt to meet its challenges and we need to know, too, the people who govern us can do so in a far-seeing and proactive way.
What do you see ahead, Miss Potts, and what do you plan?
What is your Plan B? If we are wondering whether or not to elect you, we will also need to know if you will measure up?

The by-line of Waverley Web is:
“Oh what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice to deceive”.
Its aim is to expose deceit and concealment and celebrate honesty and transparency. It does so vigorously, scurrilously, colourfully and with glee and is hugely entertaining. To sign up, http://waverleyweb.org

David Wylde, St James Terrace, Farnham

They seek him here… they seek him there?


Bewley Homes gallops into Farnham and rides roughshod all over ‘Your Waverley.’



Now the WW has to apologise too. It was Bewley  Homes that did it their way – and not Bellway Homes. Perhaps one day soon we will all be able to watch and HEAR – the webcast of Waverley meetings? 


Dig, dig, dig – the whole day through! Dig, dig, dig, dig Ancient Woodland too!






So it could build 72 homes, 26 “affordable” – whatever that means – on land of Great Landscape Value at the Garden Style Nursery, in Wrecclesham near Farnham.

“Shocking,” Disgraceful; “appalling,” “amazing,” “criminal” ” treating the Waverley Borough like somewhere in the Wild West were just a few of the descriptions given to the misdemeanours of the “illegal” acts of vandalism carried out by one of the Nation’s largest house=builders!

Surprise- surprise – isn’t that the same housebuilder that committed exactly the same little misdemeanour in Cranleigh last Winter? Building too close to Ancient Woodland – moving badger sets, digging new holes for badgers who were later found – drowned dead!! God knows what Bramley’s Dotty Dardak would have to say about that!! No that was Bellway.

 Fear not, despite all the protestations –  Steven Strenwith? – Bewley Homes’ Land Director, or not, in this particular case, apologised to Councillors and officers for the errors in construction – but failed to mention the good citizens of Wrecclesham who have to live with his mistakes.  He said his company had a fine reputation for quality housebuilding, rabbit, rabbit, won’t be many of them left either, and it would all be alright on the night – or words to that effect.

 Officers waxed lyrical how the developer would be making amends by putting in trees to “mitigate” the harm, and Farnham’s Carole Cockburn after a minor rant,  said the developer had improved the site layout by adding another seven homes, so should be supported!

Ah well! That’s alright then! Isn’t it?

After a load of councillors followed Godalming’s Follows footsteps with furious rants, and Cranleigh’s Liz Townsend suggested the developer should not be allowed to ride roughshod over Waverley’s well tried and tested planning laws, it looked as though the application might be deferred or even REFUSED! Despite the principle of development being established when outline permission was granted last year!

WOW, not really? They couldn’t, could they?

Then Oh! Carole – reached into her big knickers for her big stick and began beating her colleagues into submission.  If permission was refused the developer could build the four-bedroom homes already granted and not the extra 7 semi-detached properties now offered.

So there you are! The principal of a Developer, who ignores the law on TPO’s, and strict laws that protect Ancient Woodland – a criminal offence, but offers an ineffectual apology,  has to be dragged kicking and screaming by officers into “mitigating” the offence by planting replacement trees,  has now been established!

After watching this shambolic meeting the WW was ashamed… and so were many others. We witnessed our Senior Planning Committee Chaired by Peter Isherwood – who should have been dumped after he rubbished the villages of Ewhurst and Cranleigh, but continues undeterred, to wreck our lovely borough! Is there anything now that is sacred in this rotten borough of Waverley?

We haven’t even mentioned Councillor Gerry Hyman’s continuous claim that Waverley consistently flouts European environmental Law by not providing the Appropriate Assessments required for Farnham’s Special Protection Areas. Accusations that ‘YW’ rubbish, and refuse to show evidence that AA’s have been carried out- including “bird numbers?”

When pressed officers said they “could” seek enforcement of the developers’ illegal actions, but that was  “A CONFIDENTIAL MATTER’ – so confidential no doubt, that it will never be heard of again!

But the WW will be watching carefully. We are still waiting for a report on the Police findings on the council’s false Air Quality Data Report?

Hang your heads in shame Waverley Borough Council for allowing developers to trash Ancient Woodland – woodland that is over 600 years old. It is no excuse that you cannot monitor developments!

Hang your heads in shame Bewley Homes, and we ask? How can these people ever be trusted to build in this borough again!!

Oh! and by the way- forget all that mock outrage. There were 12 votes in favour – two against and one abstention.

Presumably, two councillors who oppose such criminal behaviour Councillor Follows and Townsend – and one Councill Hyman –  who couldn’t even acknowledge an ‘illegal application!’ Our apologies if we have it wrong – because the cameras are turned away from the committee during voting! Wonder why?