Is Guildford Conservative​ Asociation the latest breeding ground for developers?



It’s no secret that Conservative Waverley Borough Councillors the Cranleigh’s Stennett duo was the first to leap onto the developers’ bandwagon trousering a few bob for their contribution toward helping to solve the borough’s housing problems – and in the green belt too!

Despite planning officers strongly recommending refusal – Councillors Stennett’s colleagues leapt at the opportunity to breach the green belt in Guildford Road, Cranleigh and grant consent. 

One agreed – more to go?

 Then along comes former Conservative Surrey Councillor Alan Young snaffling up a property in Mapledrakes Road, Ewhurst, which he’s presently sitting on, keeping nicely warm and hoping to hatch another shedload of housing soon now that the trees have been felled? Oops did we forget, the property was purchased from a Ewhurst parish councillor, who threatened to sue the Waverley Web, after “a friend” informed us that it had been owned by the PC’s late father not him personally !!

More to come?

Thankfully Cllr Young was found out in more ways than one by the Conservative Association, and the Tories dumped him for Andrew Povey. (Well! the less said about him the better.) Both are currently a complete embarrassment to Ewhurst/Cranleigh and the latter is now chairman of the Cranleigh Conservative Association.

Now the former Guildford Cons Treasurer, John Beckwith-Smith Councillor Young’s business partner, has pitched in with his scheme to build 53 homes at Windacres Farm, in Cox Green, which is on the Surrey/ Sussex border but within the Waverley borough. On the West side of Cox Green Planning Application: WA/2018/1109 

Screen Shot 2018-09-17 at 19.41.29

As you will see Surrey County Council is perfectly happy to trouser £160,206 for early years schooling and £35,672 for Primary Schooling – ALL IN “POOR OLD CRANLEIGH!”

Screen Shot 2018-09-17 at 19.51.17.png

However, it is slightly more circumspect about Secondary Education saying – there is plenty of Capacity at Glebelands.

Screen Shot 2018-09-17 at 19.52.06.png

So more coming soon?

Just across the other side of Cox Green another Conservative Councillor – one Horsham Councillor John Bailey or (JCB) as he is known locally wants to build a further 57 on his farmland.

Ewhurst PC meeting has discussed the scheme and agreed to object, but its Waverley councillor (Con) Val Henry has already pinned her colours to JBC’s coat-tails saying she will support the application! No surprise there then!!

A difficult and potentially very unfair situation has now arisen in nearby Rudgwick. In the normal course of events, as Horsham District Council is the authority that determines planning applications you would expect that (JCB) the Cllr for Rudgwick Ward would be actively engaged in lobbying to help his constituents – 57 letters of objection have already been racked up but sadly  not possible as the applicant is its very own Horsham (JCB) district councillor!!

Instead it would appear although Conservative Cllr John Bailey claims quite correctly in his planning application for houses at Cox Green that his land there has not been farmed, except for haymaking (and the steam show),  that he has begun ploughing the land with a view to becoming the smallest arable farmer in England and to keep a few cattle for the first time in memory (years ago the Bailey business was local milk delivery). Might this have something to do with justifying his large barn?

So, in other words, Rudgwick & Cox Green have effectively, no representation on HDC or WBC to speak on their behalf.

And … there could be more homes in just one of the two developments than there are now in the whole of Cox Green (both in Sussex and Surrey).


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



A Government Inspector has just granted an appeal for a development of 23 homes, nine of which will be “affordable” at  Brockhurst Farm.

The site is adjacent to the Dunsfold Road (the approach road to Dunsfold Park)  on one side and the A281 at  Alfold Crossways on the other. The access will be from Dunsfold Road.

The development granted following an appeal hearing during the Summer is on a field of around 4.4 hectares subdivided by a conifer hedge between Dunsfold Road and the A281 Horsham to Guildford Road. Described by the inspector as being ‘unremarkable’ and due to its close proximity to the A281 was hardly “remote or tranquil.”

The Inspector refused another considerably larger appeal on the same land which is outside the settlement of Alfold saying it would harm the rural character of the area and the amenities of the nearby Brockhurst Cottages and nearby the residential properties of Spinners and Yeomans Cottage.

But he approved the second smaller scheme believing it would do less harm and was in line with the Government’s housing requirements as it would provide nine much needed ‘affordable homes’ in the vicinity. He also argued that insufficient site had been identified in Part 2 of Waverley’s Local Plan adding that Alfold’s Neighbourhood Plan had – “barely got off the starting blocks.”

His remarks that Alfold had no designated landscapes and therefore was not “a valued landscape,” will undoubtedly go down like a lead balloon with the residents of Alfold, a village it is no doubt already wishing that its county border of West Sussex, on which its sits, could be rearranged so it drops  into Sussex!

There are presently 55 homes under construction at Sweeters Copse in Alfold’s Loxwood Road and planning permission was granted recently for a similar size development on the Wyevale Garden Centre a short distance away at the Alfold Crossways. It is believed the developer is now seeking a larger scheme?

Screen Shot 2018-09-14 at 23.22.13.pngLocal campaigners including the Protect Our Waverley Group  (POW) and the Campaign For the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) have been given leave for a Judicial Review into both Waverley’s local Plan and The Dunsfold Park Scheme for a new village of  1,800 homes on the airfield site. This will be heard in the High Court on 9 -10th October.

The full transcript of the Inspector’s decision can be found hereAppeal Decision OT200-007-860 (1) (1)


They seek him here… they seek him there?




You seek us here, you seek us there,
Those damned Councillors seek us everywhere!
Are we in heaven? Are we in hell?
Where are those damned elusive Waverley swells,
Who cause us all such utter frustration
Posting every day of the week!
Spoiling every lovely vacation
with our bloody cheek!

(With apologies to Baroness Orczy)

Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, who worked in the dark, his identity known only to his immediate followers, so, too, the Waverley Webbers are forced to hide our identities so that we may succeed in accomplishing the task we set ourselves.

Awareness is rising and tempers are flying as more and more fields are being concreted over and local residents wake up to the fact that neither Green Belt nor agricultural fields are sacrosanct, and SSSIs are barely hanging on by their fingertips. Hits on the Waverley Web are now at an all-time high as local residents – not to mention local Councillors – log in, desperate to know what’s going on – not only across the Borough but in the field at the end of their road! We hear that some councillors spend more time worrying about us, then getting on with the job they were elected for!

So, who are the Waverley Webbers and where do we meet is a question that is repeatedly and increasingly being posed by our readers … not to mention Julia Potts and Bob Lies, neither of whom would dream of admitting they read the Waverley Web … as if!

Sadly, we can’t name names because, if we did,  the public, officers and councillors would all stop confiding in us.

Suffice to say,

  • we’re the slightly plump, harassed-looking mother of two who slings her Barbour and Du Barrys on over her PJs, for the school run, and hopes no one notices!


  • We’re the chap in the bright red corduroys, purchased in Allans of Petworth, propping up the bar at The Sun Inn in Dunsfold.


  • We’re the silver-surfer, with the perma-tan, courtesy of regular trips to our villa in Umbria – so much cheaper and more upmarket than Tuscany, don’t ya know!


  • The slick, young lawyer who’s just moved down from London, into the big house up the road, because the kids got into Cranleigh School. Yay!


  • We’re the postman …, the plumber and the electrician … the people you chat to, oh so casually, and sound off to, over a cup of tea, after a job well done. We’re the hairdresser – who hasn’t told a soul about your facelift (honest!) – and the manicurist you prattle on to …

Like all caped-crusaders – Batman, Spiderman, Wonder Woman, et al – we have to disguise our identities, otherwise, we risk getting L’Air du Novichok through the post or the poisoned umbrella treatment in the village shop from the Dunsfold KGB!

We are a broad church, we have no political allegiances – if anything we believe local politics should be A-political and entirely independent of any political party. We believe the make-up of councils should be balanced and not dominated by one particular party they should be open, honest and transparent. Not hold pre-meetings about pre-meetings about meetings that by the time they are held are so sanitised they are hardly worth listening to.

 Our methods may be a tad unconventional – you might have noticed, we don’t care about diversity or political correctness – but we’re all the more readable for it.

The Waverley Web was the brainchild of a Farnham resident who sat down one morning, with a cup of La Torcaza – that’s coffee to you and me – and tried to log on to Waverley Matters, a website he’d become addicted to because it not only told him everything Waverley Borough Council didn’t want him to know, it also made him chuckle with its irreverent prose. But, no matter how hard he tried – and, boy, did he try – he couldn’t find Waverley Matters. It had disappeared into the ether. After days of searching and weeks of despondency, deprived of his regular ‘fix’ of the mutter in the Waverley gutter, our Hero decided if Waverley Matters had crashed and burned – did someone die or did the author simply leave the Borough? – if no one else was going to dig-the-dirt in Waverley, he’d have to stop being an amused bystander and become the Borough’s new Caped-Crusader or arachnoid on the web.

We’d like to claim our Hero’s daily posts were an overnight sensation but, truth be told, it was more like waiting for a kettle to boil when the Aga’s in slumber mode! But with an explosion of development on their doorstep – the people of Cranleigh can’t step outside their porches without tripping over a concrete mixer – it wasn’t too long before our Hero’s in-box was groaning with posts from disgruntled and disaffected residents and that’s when the Waverley Web really took off.

In the early days no one used their real names – they were just anonymous fingers sending local news over the internet but slowly, gradually as trust built and outrage grew over what was going on behind ‘YW’s’ closed doors – never mind David Cameron’s Kitchen-Cabinet, Cranleigh Parish Councillors, Brian & Patricia Ellis and Stuart & Jeanette Stennett, were holding secret meetings with the Lettuce King and Andy Leafy, around their dining room tables! a coffee morning was arranged.

When Ford Prefect met Rita Skeeter and they were joined by Bridget Jones and Mattie Storin, coffee morphed into brunch, which slid into afternoon tea and before you know it they ended up in a lock-in at … That would be telling but, suffice to say, the rest is history. Those few brave souls, who’d had enough of developers appropriating their green and pleasant fields and dumper trucks ruining their quiet country lanes, they set about cultivating informants and using undercover agents to infiltrate the Council and, whisper it quietly officers too. And now that Charterhouse and Cranleigh schools are  planning to sell off some of their playing fields the people of both towns say ‘enough’s enough!’ and they, too, want to join the growing band of Waverley Webbers because if Waverley Officers, POW and the Campaign for some parts of Rural England (CPRE)  get their way development is coming to a field near you!

Clever Nigel Pilling has already found us in Broadwater Park. Full marks Nigel.


Screen Shot 2018-09-15 at 11.04.05.png

That’s one helluva web you found in Godalming Nigel?





50 years ago today​ – the rains came down when Surrey – and parts of ‘Your Waverley’ went under water.


Here’s a map showing all the serious flood areas including Farnham, Elstead, Bramley, Alfold   Cranleigh and Godalming.  Homes and businesses wallowed in floodwater and raw sewage, and despite the herculean efforts of firefighters, nothing could stop the huge flow of water. It cascaded down from the hills above Cranleigh into the valley below. Parts of Godalming were cut off when the River Wey flooded the Lammas Lands.

Now planning permissions have been granted for new developments on floodplains all around the towns and villages affected by the 1968 floods! But it didn’t just end there on the days following the heavy rains over the 14/15 September 1968. Parts of the borough flooded again in 1981, 1985, 2014 and they will again! It is just a question of time because before heavy rains fall on our parade! The Waverley borough sits on heavy Wealden clay and includes rivers like the Wey through Godalming and the Cranleigh Waters which run into The Wey and onto Guildford and The Thames.   So the Waverley Borough’s problems then become Guildford’s problem and beyond!


Screen Shot 2018-09-11 at 22.22.59.png


Cllr Holder to the rescue! He’ll be solving our trains … a new railway line for Cranleigh, and boosting Chinese tourism!


Even if you have never watched a clip from a Waverley Council  Webcast – this link below is a MUST DO!

If you watch one Scrutiny Committee this year – Cllr Holder’s comments on the Economic Strategy certainly are an eye-opener!


• He’s meeting with Jeremy Hunt and the MD of the railways to knock the train capacities into shape.
• He’s also creating a new railway line between Cranleigh & Guildford
• He’s talking to the Chinese Cultural attache to encourage Chinese tourism, and he’s managed to find a local Mandarin speaker (Jeremy Hunt’s wife no less!) to translate his barmy ideas.
• He’s reprinting the pamphlet ‘Lutyens in Waverley’ in Mandarin to snare those Chinese tourists and to encourage them to visit Charterhouse School and our high streets to spend their Yuan.

The Councillor without portfolio for Hambledon & Witley and formerly for Dunsfold certainly loves a meeting with the great and good to show off his talents. But what exactly has he ever actually done, other than opposing development on the largest brownfield site in the borough and support development in the countryside?!

PS Apparently there a great deal of mutter in the Conservative gutter about the identity of the Waverley Web.

Coming soon – TheWaverley Web unmasked?

Is a Godalming Tory jumping on the local residents’ bandwagon​?


Have the residents of Godalming bounced the Tory-dominated town council into objecting to a planning application it would have preferred to see approved? 

Is one of the Tories now smoothing the way for the Tory-dominated borough planners to give it the go-ahead? 

You will see from the letter below that Godalming Town Council has registered its objection to a development of 262 dwellings on land between New Way & Aarons Hill, Godalming.

No surprise there then after more than 70 people turned up and another 170 registered their objection to development in the GREEN BELT that would join Godalming to Guildford Godalming Town Council backs residents’ fight – plans just not good enough for green belt site.

Or bearing in mind the Waverley Web’s post yesterday – perhaps that would be just what the new Unitary Authority would want? Has Hambledon’s Holder become a bit bolder or is he just demob happy as he prepares to leave ‘Your Waverley?

Councillor Andrew Bolton reminds residents on Facebook that – it is Waverley Council that will determine the application, NOT the Town Council. No doubt, just in case residents dare to think their very vocal opposition is going to make one jot of difference at Waverley Towers. 

Please, Councillor Bolton, don’t treat the voting fodder like idiots! They know full well that it is the borough council’s function to refuse or permit planning applications. Residents aim of turning out in force was to register their opposition, to their town councillors, the people they elected to represent their views. Because like the residents in the East of the borough they know that if it doesn’t move, Waverley officers will recommend developing it, and unless councillors break the habit of a lifetime Tory councillors will follow their lead! Neither were residents asking you to predetermine an application. But just giving you a gentle reminder that it is your function as a Godalming Town Councillor to not only listen but HEAR and act on the concerns. You ignore the mood of Godalming people at your peril. 

To remind them of the lack of funds for Green Oaks and then mention that the developers’ twenty pieces of silver – or as you describe it as 106 monies for infrastructure, could provide “substantial support for Green Oaks School” and that it may not survive without it was not only disingenuous but a disgraceful veiled threat.  Dare we suggest you were more than a little put out that a motion to object came from the opposition? An opposition that is proving itself to be very effective?

Screen Shot 2018-09-12 at 20.10.07.pngScreen Shot 2018-09-12 at 20.10.21.png


Don’t forget the changes to the Guildford Local Plan for the other half of the field. Guildford’s consultation started on 11 September and will run until 23 October 2018. You can all comment on the proposed removal from the Green Belt here:


Has Hambledon’s Holder become a bit bolder or is he just demob happy as he prepares to leave ‘Your Waverley?


Councillors and officers looked like rabbits caught in a set of headlights as the member for Witley & Hambledon threw this little missile into the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Value for Money Committee.

No doubt, Cllr Holder (Witley & Hambledon) is willing to help sabotage the county council because he’s preparing to join the big band of Conservative councillors intent on leaving the 50 strong Tory contingents at Waverley. Presumably in these discussions at a meeting yesterday on the borough’s future Economic Strategy he is predicting the demise of Waverley Council too?

So will  ‘Your Waverley’ be gobbled up by  Guildford and Woking?

WW bets that Surrey’s Leader – ‘Hodge the Bodge’ will be keen to scotch this?



Waverley’s Jim Edwards was so pleased with his new Economic Strategy …


… that he took the Waverley executive on a coach tour of business parks, including this one at Dunsfold.

You know the airfield that the locals have repeatedly objected to its expansion for business or anything else!

The executives are pictured here on the starting blocks to push the council’s new economic strategy forward.  Or could it be the same as the old one, just with no officers left to carry it out!



On your marks – get set – GO!


When members of Waverley’s Value for Money Overview and Scrutiny Committee sat down to scrutinise the draft strategy last night there were some glum faces. Waverley had brought in ‘experts’ (Atkins Consultants) to write a document which councillors said they hadn’t had time to peruse – some hadn’t even received it!

Ah well nothing, like scrutinising something you have hardly read, or haven’t seen at all, is there? A document that will go to the Executive for approval on 9 October!

Suffice to say those who had “skimmed through” the document said much was missing. No surprise there then!

Councillors identified that although there were 8,200 businesses in Waverley the document had not taken into account there were many rural businesses in a mainly rural borough but there was no reference to them. Dunsfold’s Councillor John Gray said the figures just didn’t add up – “It says here there are only 85 people employed in 165 rural businesses – what about agriculture, forestry etc?”

Councillor Mike Band wanted to know where was The Surrey Hills Management Plan was identified? A group partly funded by Waverley?

Richard Seaborne suggested the document, particularly the Executive Summary should be  “tidied up” and should include some important figures – like the size of Waverley’s economy which was £4.7billion. He said “A goodly number of highly educated highly paid people who live in the borough and use its services work outside the borough. I want to see more detail on the in-out economy? Does Waverly have the staff or the skills to monitor the document?’

The document didn’t portray an overall picture said, David Round. Including infrastructure, the overcrowded trains from Haslemere included. He claimed 80% of the money that flowed into Waverley came from the City – that is the driver of Waverley’s economy. He highlighted the amount of office and retail space being lost to residential partly due to increased business rates – “are we telling the Government – if we all bleat it may listen.”

Stephen Mulliner shared many of his colleagues’ reservations – “truth is –  a local authority is not best placed to carry out the actions in this document termed as – SMART – which he asked to be removed – we don’t have the money or the staff to do that. We are not a business” 

The man behind the document, Jolly Jim Edwards looking not quite so jolly at the end, said that the need for the important Economic Strategy was prompted by CRATUS – ( brought in by CEO Tom Horwood to review Waverley.)  “We all have to realise we are making a real sea change here  – there is a long way to go but at least we’ve made a start.”

Not a very good one, judging by the way it was received! A bit like Elsies – Culture Strategy?Do we have a Cultural Strategy or do we have 230 pages weighing over – 600 grams – of expensive tripe?

Councillors agreed to form a small group to do further work on the document urgently before recommending it to the Executive. 



Caption competition – Help the Local Tories with their leaflets?



Conservative central office kindly sends out a template for local Councillors to fill in and pretend they are ‘In Touch’ This does rely on them having something to say. Nothing stops a Tory sticking out a leaflet with their faces in it – not even basic editing.

Unfortunately, the Godalming edition was sent to the printers with the templates still incomplete!
We’d like to offer a bottle of Silent Pool Gin to the best caption writer out there – Please comment below!

So which local Tory is being beaten up over this glaring error? Perhaps Jeremy’s agent and local co-ordinator Edward Norman will consider his position or is he now too busy in Woking, Runnymede & Weybridge to spot these glaring mistakes.

Here at the Waverley Web we have one of our own:

‘Hands up if you think we can manage to get our leaflets in shape- let alone protect Godalming.’



Four things Charterhouse Greenbelt campaigners are doing for Godalming.


Godalming campaigners are working to save the Green Belt playing fields, where Charterhouse School wants to build 132 houses, have upped their campaigning game.

Here are four things that are pushing their campaigning activities forward:

  1. They have discovered Photoshop and have started trolling Charterhouse with these great spoof images:



2. They have set up a campaign website, where you can find out about saving Broom & Lees playing fields here.

3. They have set up a closed Facebook Groupdo apply to join it. We understand that local Tory Councillors have been forced to log in and join to defend their actions – and their seats in 2019!

4. They have started leafleting the local community!


Here at the Waverley Web, we applaud you. Well done, we support you bringing pressure to bear!


CPRE helping to solve England’s housing crisis everywhere – except of course – in Waverley?



The Campaign for the Protection (CPRE) of only some parts of Rural England and certainly not the green belt or Waverley’s countryside – claims the root of England’s housing crisis lies in how land is bought and sold. When agricultural land receives planning consent the land typically becomes at least 100 times more valuable.

It believes that more of this huge uplift in value should be captured to provide benefits to the community. If there was more confidence that more of the gains from development was invested in improved landscaping and attractive green spaces;  in affordable housing and public services like new doctors surgeries and schools, then there would be less opposition to new development and much better infrastructure.

Now there’s a coincidence! CPRE takes Dunsfold Park to Judicial Review in the Autumn actually preventing everything it cites as good planning above from taking place! Limits its costs for taking US – the ratepayers to the High Court at £10,000, and lands us, with a £300,000+ bill! 

The CPRE windbags claim the Government should think radically about reforming the way we capture planning gain for the community. Saying first, they should monitor the implementation of their welcome changes to Section 106 to ensure that councils deliver and developers do not continue to wriggle out of their commitments.

Or in Waverley’s case lets developers off the hook, either because they can’t get their act together with the education authority, or allow 106 contributions to fund expensive leisure facilities for private schools; or are duped by developers who convince them that they can’t make enough money, on some schemes if they build affordable homes!!!

Will Farnham’s Woolmead development – minus affordable homes – boost Berkeley’s profits even further?

CPRE (who will soon have a borough councillor from the local organisation in its midst after the 2019 elections- you heard it here first) say Government could give local planners a stronger role in buying and assembling land for housing. Thus, allowing them to plan new developments more effectively, share the benefits for the community and approve developments in places local people accept.

 They should reform the 1961 Land Compensation Act to clarify that local authorities are able to compulsorily purchase land at a fair market value that does not include prospective planning permission, rather than speculative “hope” value.

Too often in Britain, new housing is not good enough and comes without the infrastructure and public services required to support it. Other countries do a better job of making attractive new places to live, by making sure that development profits the community as a whole. Unless we learn from them, Britain’s housing crisis will remain.

WW can’t help thinking that if the national organisations followed the Waverley CPRE’s branch’s rhetoric no homes would be built anywhere – near anyone?




Godalming Town Council backs residents’ fight – plans just not good enough for green belt site.


Residents, backed by Waverley Councillor Paul Follows ensured that everyone was made aware of the threat of expansion into their treasured green belt countryside at Aarons Hill. 

Last night after a packed meeting Godalming Town Council heard some well-researched concerns and objections from residents and councillors alike. And the townsfolk were rewarded for their efforts getting the backing they had hoped for!

WW can’t help wondering why so many town councillors, who are also borough councillors backed a Local Plan that rolled back Godalming’s green belt in the first place? Could it be because they are Tories – one of whom later gave his Lib Dem colleague an ear-bashing!

A  resident told us that Tory “Town and borough Councillor, Comrade  Stefan  ” I voted for the Labour Party’ Reynolds’  interrupted his Lib Dem colleague after Councillor Follows claimed he was the only Waverley councillor in the room who didn’t vote for Waverley’s  Local Plan which included removing this site from the greenbelt! Following, Follows –    Comrade Reynold retorted – ‘well I didn’t!’ after which   – Councillor Follows was forced to remind him –  that was only because he DIDNT SHOW UP AT THE MEETING TO VOTE AT ALL!’

It seemed the Town Councillors had little choice but to represent their community, with only one abstention coming from the grumpy Steve Cosser (Con Charterhouse). Three Councillors were absent, including County Councillor for Aaron’s Hill Peter Martin. No surprise there then?

The upshot:

Screen Shot 2018-09-06 at 22.33.45.png

Thanks to the efforts of the people of Godalming round one of the battle to preserve the town from becoming part of greater Guildford has been won. But the war with Waverley planners is to follow.

Godalming town council supported Paul Follows’s proposal to object formally to the development on Aarons Hill. A  formal letter will  be released by the council today (Friday)

Here’s how the Waverley Web has covered the tumultuous events of the past few days.

Godalming residents show Waverley residents how objecting to development in the green belt should be done.

Godalming residents show Waverley residents how objecting to development in the green belt should be done.


Will Farnham’s Woolmead development – minus affordable​ homes – boost Berkeley’s profits even further​?​


HOW TO DUPE WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL… just follow the Berkeley Bunnies?

Recently Waverley planning officers persuaded councillors to support another housing development with NO affordable homes, despite having an agreed Local Plan policy to provide 30%!

So the Berkeley Bunnies will soon be burrowing into Farnham’s East Street without having to spend a penny on any ‘affordable homes because officers convinced everyone that ‘experts’ had deduced that if the developer was forced to do so the 147 dwelling development would be unviable. Same happened in Haslemere.

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 10.03.02

For years Berkleys has been pulling the same old ruse with local authorities around the country. Raking in squillions over the past seven years – by not providing low-cost homes.

Everyone is still asking three years after consent was granted at an appeal for 425 homes, 30% of which were to be affordable in Cranleigh – where are they?

Hounslow council accepted that Berkeley could only build 20% of a 308-unit scheme as affordable – half the local authority’s affordable target! To build those units, Berkeley stated in a planning agreement, that would mean the scheme would be £24.6m in deficit. Berkeley told Hounslow that house sales would generate £132m. Berkeley did agree to make an extra payment to Hounslow capped at £8.3m in the event of the scheme performing well.

Land Registry data suggest that the scheme generated close to £250m, with one apartment selling for £4.55m.

Berkeley’s shares have soared on the back of the profits, creating a fortune for the company’s senior executives, who since 2008 have been given shares worth £610m. Pidgley himself holds an additional 4.4m shares, worth £163m. The shares have more than trebled in value over the past decade.

You can read one Waverley councillor’s’view of the recent planning decisions here: 

Is Waverley’s new boy concerned about his role on the planning committee?

The housebuilder Berkeley Group’s founder and chairman, Tony Pidgley, raised by travellers just outside the Waverley borough, has earned £174m over the past decade, and is set to be paid another £48m by the company over the next five years, which will make him one of the highest paid bosses of a public company in Britain.

His pay package has attracted the anger of politicians and housing campaigners as investigations uncovered that the company has reduced its affordable housing obligations in the overwhelming majority of its developments.

So watch out Cranleigh!

Berkeley’s shares have soared on the back of the profits, creating a fortune for the company’s senior executives, who since 2008 received shares worth £610m. Pidgley holds an additional 4.4m shares, worth £163m. These have more than trebled in value over the past decade.

However, the housebuilding barons are now selling shares worth £300m!  Among them, Chairman Pidgley (£65m) and Chief Executive Rob Perrins (£37m)

Is that a downturn in the property market we hear?

Although the company has restricted future bonus payouts following shareholder anger, the top six executives could still collect another £127m over the next four years. Pidgley, who has amassed a £310m fortune according to the Sunday Times rich list, is set for up to £48m.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Vince Cable, said Pidgley and other housebuilders have a duty to the nation to build more affordable housing especially if they are personally making “vast fortunes” from building expensive homes.

“Tony Pidgley is rightly regarded as a sage of the housebuilding industry, with an impressive record of calling the housing market correctly. That explains why he is well-paid,” Cable said.

“But housebuilders who are making these vast fortunes must also understand that they have a social responsibility to make sure the country has the homes we so desperately need. Shareholders must make sure that executives are not rewarded for a poor record on affordable housing because that does not encourage them to do the right thing and make sure we have a sustainable housing market.”

Will Godalming​ get the traffic​ chaos and Guildford get the bunce?



Last night Guildford Borough Council decided to forge ahead with its plans to join Guildford with Godalming putting almost 500 homes on the boroughs’ borders at Aaron’s Hill.


You can read the complete report that was considered by Guildford BC’s Executive when it agreed to waive the call-in procedure and agree to the inclusion in the Local Plan to allow Ashill to build 200+ homes adjacent to the 263+ planned by ‘Your Waverley’ on the green belt boundary between the towns “immediately.’

But new Liberal Democrat Councillor Paul Follows questioned the Guildford Executive’s decision asking how the extra burden of traffic and services on Godalming would be dealt with? It’s the same field – but half the residents would not get ANY services from Godalming!!!! Guildford will provide!

WW wonders why the Conservative councillors, supposedly serving their electors in Godalming are silent on the subject? Surely such an important strategic green belt site in the countryside that is now ‘an urban extension to Godalming’, must be of some concern to them too?

WW has heard that other than Councillor Follows and residents of his ward NOBODY, yes, NOBODY from Waverley attended. Not attending another boroughs executive when it’s this important? 

Also, Cllr Tony Rooth, IND (former Tory, Pilgrims Ward) had a crack at suggesting that the Aaron’s Hill bit be shelved but he was immediately trodden on from a great height by Guildford BC’s chairperson and his successor as leader. But full marks to him for having a go.

 The ‘masterplanning’ bit was obviously a total nonsense. Clearly, a full site plan exists.

Screen Shot 2018-09-04 at 21.10.56.pngScreen Shot 2018-09-04 at 21.11.12.png

Screen Shot 2018-09-04 at 21.11.43

Let’s read that second answer from Guildford again: “We do not envisage that these homes will rely on services provided by Waverley Borough Council, which Guildford Borough Council would normally provide” And presumably not rely on any services from Godalming Town Council either?
• Will they be banned from the Wilfrid Noyce?
• Will they be excluded from the Godalming cemetery next door?
• Will they be uninvited to Godalming Farmers markets?!
• Will all the residents be shopping and parking in Shackleford (whose Parish they are now in)?!

It’s not as easy as Guildford Councillors are suggesting! What’s more, they know it, Waverley planners know it, and WE KNOW KNOW IT DON”T WE? Because more and more people are reading the Waverley Web!

Screen Shot 2018-09-04 at 21.13.21

Godalming residents show Waverley residents how objecting to development in the green belt should be done.

GBC Questions: Supplementary Information Sheet

Godalming residents show Waverley residents how objecting to development in the green belt​ should be done.


 Residents have decided they will not sit idly by and watch Godalming become Godawfulming or become part of Greater Guildford.

So they have put together a 72-page dossier that ‘Your Waverley’ will have to weigh-in rather than register!

Waverley’s new boy – Councillor Paul Follows – is it only six months since he was elected – seems like years – is, quite obviously, having an impact on the town he serves.  Because the good folk of Godalming are in fight-mode and planners may find it more difficult to support the spread of concrete across the green belt than they first thought? The proposed and combined development – a further 200 plus homes for Guildford would be the largest single expansion of the Godalming settlement boundary.

At a stroke, it would increase the population of Godalming by 4-5% and 8-10% taking the Guildford site into consideration.

objectionsubmitted.jpgResidents say the proposed development by Ashill in Eashing Lane ‘will have profound and long-lasting consequences for the whole of Godalming as well as the surrounding immediate area.’

You can read here why Godalming residents are so incensed by the bid to build 200+ homes on a site which has been included in the Local Plan, by rolling back the green belt.

WW wonders why the Tory councillors were so silent about the land being included in the Local Plan in the first place? 

Godalming Ashill Development is getting the bumsrush from residents.

Here’s the link to the 79 Page Objection Letter

Ignore the people of Godalming at your peril Waverley Planners!

Godalming Town Council will consider the application at the Town Council Meeting on Thursday 6th September at the Waverley Council Chamber.

Take a letter, ​Mr Horwood.




Just when you thought the silly season was over and we, at the Waverley Web, were beginning to think about looking out our winter woollies, turning up the Aga and dusting off the wood-burner, a burst of late summer sunshine seems to have given Protect our Little Corner’s Bob Lies a touch of sunstroke.

Having spent the summer passing round the begging bowl, after the last JR Judge refused to confirm that PoW could not rely on the Aarhus Convention to limit its costs to £10,000 and would, instead – SHOCK! HORROR! – have to appeal for this indulgence to the next JR Judge, Mr Lies and his cohorts have been fretting about how to raise the wherewithal in case Waverley wins and their second homes are put at risk!

Yup, they don’t care about other people who can’t afford a home in the borough and they sure as hell don’t want to put their own homes on the line like the brave, Farnham residents did.

 Past help has come from the Parish Councils but the Waverley Web has been advised that even they are beginning to baulk at funding the PoW Crusade, which looks set to run and run and run … all the way to the top – if the High Court doesn’t agree with them, what do they know? It will be the Supreme Court and then the European Court of Human Rights. Next stop the Vatican and if that fails God himself – after all, he’s supposed to be an Englishman … isn’t he?!

We’ve heard that Mr Lies has been busy mulling over how to embarrass Waverley Borough Council, get local residents on his side and cause a splash in the local papers. Spin? Moi? Heaven forbid! It’s a simple case of all’s fair in love and war!

What? You thought local residents were on side and all singing from the PoW hymn sheet? Only in his fantasies!!!

Unfortunately,  Mr Lies, has discovered he can’t have his cake and eat it! On one hand, he’s telling everyone, including High Court Judges, that the majority of Waverley residents are behind PoW and his organisations speak for thousands whilst, on the other, he’s pleading poverty.

Walking the tightrope is our Mr Lies! What the Judges want to know is, if he speaks for so many, how come PoW’s so short of funds, and demanding the protection of the Aarhus Convention?

He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t!

So, in the interests of … well, um, err … in the interests of self-interest, he’s stopped perpetuating the lie that PoW is all about protecting Waverley and finally admitted that it’s all about protecting Awfold and Dudsfold: Revealing its original aim to stop Dunsfold and to hell with the Cranleigh and the rest of the borough! 

One of our moles forwarded us a copy of Mr Lies’ holiday project. He’s been busy concocting a letter in which – with faux indignation – he’s demanded to know what Waverley thinks it’s doing wasting Council Tax payer’s money defending the indefensible – ie, the proposed Dunsfold Park development?

We would have thought even Humpty  Numpty  Mr Lies could have worked  that one out but, given it’s the silly season, we’ve decided to step into Leader Potts’ fishnets and craft a response, on her behalf, so she doesn’t have to take time out from topping up her tan to respond to the old windbag.

The following has been posted by a fly-on-the-wall at La Potts’ poolside:

La Potts: Take a letter Mr Horwood!’

Dear Mr Lies

Mr Horwood ‘Tch! Tch! Tch! Julia! Sloppy! You don’t want to let anyone know you’ve been reading the Waverley Web!’

La Potts ‘Well how else am I supposed to find out what’s going on in the Burys…? Let alone the Borough!’

‘I refer to your letter of …’

 I refer to your recent letter, addressed to Tom Horwood, enquiring why WBC is ‘wasting so much money defending the challenges from CPRE and POW, which if successful’ – you claim – ‘will reduce the housing requirement for the whole of the Waverley Borough’. As you then go on to answer your own question, I’m not really sure why you posed it but, assuming it wasn’t purely rhetorical, the reason we’re defending it is that if PoW and CPRE succeed in their challenge, the Borough will almost certainly be left without an adopted Local Plan. And that places not only the Council but its residents and taxpayers in the worst possible position. Instead of a win-win, it’s a lose-lose!

Every would-be developer in the Borough and beyond will be knocking on our door, our in-trays will be overflowing and our server will topple-over from the speed with which the planning applications to dig up every garden and green field in the borough – that hasn’t already been concreted over – or flooded.  And don’t get me started on the subject of flooding …

Far be it from me to criticise my predecessors but, frankly, I’ve had enough. My colleague, Liz-the-Biz …

‘What? Oh, very well, if you insist!’

My colleague, Mr Horwood, and I inherited an unholy mess after 10 years of Mrs MOP Matthew Evans and don’t even mention Robert Knowless or Shut the Gates!

Mary Orton-Pett cow-towing to Richard STG, Robert Knowless and ‘Brian – they’ll be housing at Dunsfold Park over my dead body – Ellis’s belief’ that Waverley was a sacred cow and no one, least of all the Tory Party, was going to make it build anything anywhere! And, arising from that bloody-minded pig-headedness, Cranleigh, Godalming and Farnham – to name but a few of our beautiful towns- are now changing beyond recognition as developers are digging up green fields, concreting over orchards and even developing on flood plains! And all of this whilst the biggest brownfield site in the Borough was ignored and told there would be housing there over their dead bodies. Well, all I’ve got to say to that is, one down, Mr Ellis, two to go!

And, I’ve news for you too, Mr Lies: that isn’t happening on my watch! I’m a pragmatic woman …

Why is Waverley not taking the ‘do nothing’ option and letting PoW and CPRE ride roughshod over its Local Plan?’

Because if the Local Plan fails – which it could well do – the thousands of woman hours and hundreds of thousands of pounds that have been spent in getting to this point will all be for nothing and we’ll have to go back to the drawing board and that will cost Waverley residents and taxpayers even more than it’s costing to defend the Local Plan that I and Liz-the-Biz have secreted blood, sweat and tears over!

Read my lips: WE ARE NOT going back to the Dark Ages when Shut-the-Gates and Knowless doffed their caps to the likes of you and your small and steadily decreasing band of like-minded bigots. Liz and I have a plan and it’s to build on the biggest brownfield site in the Borough. Which is what the government wants, the people of Cranleigh and Farnham want and even CPRE wants – everywhere but in Waverley!!!

Got it? Now stop bothering me and go get a life!

Yours etc …


Guildford & Waverley GP’s are among the worst in the country to extend their opening hours.


Welcome to affluent Surrey?

Screen Shot 2018-09-02 at 10.23.56.png

Revealed: Millions of patients denied access to extended GP hours

More than five million patients have no access to extended GP opening hours with new NHS England data showing those CCGs which are furthest away from meeting the national deadline and this includes GP Surgeries in the Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group.

It will come as no surprise to many patients in the borough of Waverley that it comes fourth in England’s worst-performing CCG’s in England. This despite covering one of the wealthiest areas in the country where some patients have access to private GP’s out of hours. 

The Cheshire and Merseyside region has the highest proportion of patients with “no provision” for extended GP hours, according to data published by NHS England.

Within the region, South Sefton Clinical Commissioning Group and Liverpool CCG have the highest proportion of patients in England for whom there is no provision of extended access. Both told HSJ they are undertaking a procurement exercise to find a provider to deliver more hours from October this year.

Overall, London has the highest proportion, of any region, for patients with access to full extended GP appointments.

The best performing individual CCGs are Rushcliffe CCG in Nottinghamshire and Herefordshire CCG, which both have 100 per cent coverage for full extended GP hours.

NHS England has issued a deadline to all CCGs requiring them to have full extended GP access for 100 per cent of their population by October this year. The target was originally set for April 2019 but was brought forward by five months.

Several of the worst performing CCGs have said it will be a “challenge” to meet NHS England’s new target date but are still working to meet it.

CCGs with the highest proportion of patients with no extended access

CCG Percentage of patients with no provision
South Sefton CCG 63.3
Liverpool CCG 50.6
West Leicestershire CCG 50.5
Guildford and Waverley CCG 47.9
East Riding of Yorkshire CCG 42.9
Mid Essex CCG 42.7
Swale CCG 42.2
Lincolnshire East CCG 39.5
Stoke on Trent CCG 38.2

The data from NHS England records the number of patients in each CCG who have “full”, “partial” or “no provision” of extended access. Those with “full” provision have access to pre-bookable appointments on weekends and weekdays between 8am and 8pm, through either their own practice or group of practices.

Those with “no provision” have no access to GP appointments outside of core contract hours.

Only those GP practices or groups of practices, which voluntarily signed up to NHS England’s direct enhanced service funding are included in the data analysed by HSJ. It does not include any other extended access services that may have been commissioned.

NHS England said it had two sets of data for extended GP access. One is called the GP forward view monitoring survey and is collected directly from CCGs while the extended access bi-annual survey data is collected from individual GP practices. However, the national commissioner has not published the GPFV monitoring data and has declined to share it with HSJ.

It claims the data shows 52 per cent of the country has access to full extended hours compared with the data analysed by HSJ which shows 39.7 per cent of the country is covered by full extended access.

A spokeswoman for NHS England said: “The NHS is investing at least £258m this year to offer improved access to general practice, including evening and weekend appointments. This is ahead of schedule with appointments available to more than half the country now, and they will be available across the whole country by October this year.”

Who stopped to help the driver during the collision​​ in Shere – which​ resulted in a Cranleigh man being arrested?


“Were you the man who helped with a road traffic collision in Shere last week?” This is the question that headlines a police statement this morning.

Surrey Police want to trace a man who stopped to help after a collision on Sandy Lane in Shere on Saturday (August 25, 2018). One of the even days of Wings & Wheels, at Dunsfold.

In the police statement, a spokesperson says: “At around 8.20am we were called to Sandy Lane following reports of an abandoned black Audi A3 partly blocking the road. The car was damaged and all airbags were deployed.”

Jonathon Morgan, 27, from Cranleigh, was arrested and charged with driving a motor vehicle when alcohol level above limit. He will appear at Guildford Magistrates Court on Tuesday, 11 September.

Police Constable Mel Tregay, who is investigating the incident said: “We are looking to speak to a man who we believe witnessed the incident and helped the driver after the collision.

“We are also appealing for other witnesses who may have seen the incident to come forward with any information and help us establish the exact circumstances.”

Anyone with any information is asked to contact Surrey Police on 101 or use report.police.UK and quote PR/45180091286. Alternatively, any information can be provided anonymously to the independent charity Crimestoppers by calling 0800 555 111.


Hold the front page- there’s a Tory councillor on Facebook! And then along comes a Godalming Liberal Democrat to speak to his residents.



Who better than Bramley’s By-Pass Byham to launch into social media to defend ‘Your Waverley.’

Surfacing only when all the complaints about car park charges imposed on the borough’s commons are attributed to Waverley, where he is a Councillor as opposed to where they really belong, at Surrey County Council.

Who better than Bramley’s By-Pass Byham to launch into social media to defend ‘Your Waverley.’

Why isn’t he responding to some of the more serious complaints regularly trotted out regardless of which authority they are aimed at?  Perhaps Farnham’s Air quality issue is just one example? But at least he has taken to social media – hopefully in time to be re-elected in Bramley and prevent being By-passed by his residents?

Screen Shot 2018-08-24 at 09.41.38.png

image1Then along comes, Councillor Paul Follows who regularly engages with the public on social media to show the Tories how it works.

Dear Resident,

Likely you will have seen notices and received literature from a developer regarding a proposed development of 262 houses within the ward (application WA/2018/1239).

My view is that consultation has been minimal and as one of your ward councillors I wanted to provide you with some updates about what is happening, to tell you about our concerns and let you know what you can do to engage and when.


– The formal consultation period for this application ‪ends Friday 31st August‬.

– Godalming Town Council will consider the application ‪on Thursday 6th September‬ to provide its comments to Waverley Borough Council.

– The Joint Planning Committee of Waverley Borough Council (date to be confirmed) will then formally consider the application and make the decision to grant or to reject planning permission. Waverley will contact anyone who registered an objection or comment.

– If rejected at that stage, the developer could appeal.


The density of the site (262 houses) with a high possibility of nearer 500 if and when the adjacent land in Guildford is considered in a future application.

– Significant Impact upon local wildlife and the environment.

– Significant impact on traffic and roads.

– Significant impact upon already-stretched infrastructure.

– Need for truly affordable and social housing (for first time buyers, key workers and locals)

– Need for an integrated community, not two very separate residential areas.

– Design and layout of the scheme.


– Development may benefit local schools such as Green Oak and Rodborough who would likely receive direct infrastructure contributions and increases in pupil numbers.

– Proposed community building could benefit the community as a whole. We have proposed a clinic/dentist or youth centre as some possible uses.

– Increased numbers of residents in the area may (in time) drive other changes – such as increases in public transport provision.

It is important to us that ANY development benefit existing residents, that you have the chance to be heard and that those views are taken seriously by the council.

I want to understand your views and concerns so that I can better represent you as your ward councillor on this extremely important matter.


– Make sure to have your say on this application via the planning portal on the Waverley Borough Council website or in person at the council offices. Application WA/2018/1239‬

– Attend the meeting of Godalming Town Council ‪on Thursday 6th September at 7pm‬ at the Council Offices. Any questions need to be sent to the Town Council in advance with at least two full working days before the meeting.‬

– You can also do the same for the meeting at Waverley Borough Council when a date is set to formally decide upon this application (likely to be some point in October).

– You can also review the community petition that has been organised in cooperation with other concerned residents and local groups. You may have already seen and signed this, but the aim is to engage as many people in the Ockford Ridge, Eashing and Aarons Hill area as possible in the time remaining.…

And finally:

Contact your local Liberal Democrat Councillors using the details below, on this or any other issues that are concerning you!

Cllr Paul Follows

Cllr Ollie Purkiss

That’s how to  engage with the public Councillor Byham!

Godalming Ashill Development is getting the bumsrush from residents.


Godalming residents are waking up and smelling the concrete that could be about to cover part of the town’s once protective green belt.

If recent planning officer recommendations are anything to go by its a given. The mantra in ‘Your Waverley’s ‘ planning department is – if it doesn’t move grant permission!’

Last night at Western Planning officers were quite happy to convert a shed into a house near Farnham Castle’s Conservation Area!!

Residents are beginning to question why farmland should be removed from the Green Belt to provide more housing in Eashing Lane. Some residents are posting videos on the Godalming Community Board generating over a 100 comments in the GREAT GODALMING GREEN BELT DEBATE

  • What do they get in return for 262 houses?
  • A mystery Community Building and a footpath into an existing field they are calling a ‘new Country Park’ – (as it’s too steep to build houses on!)
  • More traffic?
  • Services under stress?

Meanwhile, the developers have released a “Community Update Newsletter” ahead of the Planning Application consultation closing this week.


Here is the link to download the newsletter.

Respond NOW! here to Waverley by Friday 31st August for WA/2018/1239

One resident and video poster Nina M has also started a petition, which we would like to bring to your attention, seeking toAsk Waverley BC to rethink housebuilding & reject Ashill development on greenfield land”

Good Luck – We’ve seen how the  East of the Borough, has been treated without the area benefitting from  Green Belt protection! As councillors sat with their hands in the air consenting development after development even on floodplains, they called it ‘Poor Old Cranleigh.”

No doubt they will stick their hands in the air and call our town – “Poor Old Godawfulming!’

Not a single Conservative Councillor has responded as to WHY they took this land out of Green Belt, as opposed to any other space, given the very narrow roads into Godalming or the bottleneck that is the A3 to Guildford.

Perhaps they will break the habit of a lifetime and write to us here at

Guildford allocates 42 homes a year for Woking.



Guildford Borough Council has allocated an extra 42 houses per annum to its revised Local Plan to help meet Woking’s unmet need. It has agreed to the Planning Inspector’s recommendations, just as Waverley has, which lead to the current Judicial Review. Guildford will now have to build 672 homes a year, up from the previous 654 planned last year.


The report (here)  and annexe here goes to the Guildford Executive on 4th September for the recommendation, with a 6-week consultation to follow. The report explains that:

Woking’s unmet housing need is 225 homes a year
Waverley was directed to take 83 homes a year by the Inspector
Guildford will take an extra 42 houses a year

Screen Shot 2018-08-29 at 11.40.37Waverley Web asks? – Does this undermine the current action from CPRE and PoW? Guildford says it is more constrained than Waverley in taking this housing. Does such precedence now pull the rug from under this appeal?

Perhaps the best outcome is a reduction in Waverley’s numbers between 42 and 83? Will that justify the apparent extra £300,000 set aside by Waverley to fight this JR?
What if the judge says Waverley is MUCH LESS constrained than Guildford – might Waverley’s numbers actually GO UP? (Not again!!)

Is anyone going to ask Surrey Police what’s happened​ to that air quality investigation?


Surely the Farnham Herald could give Surrey Police a ring and put us all out of our misery? Isn’t it time they handed out that official quote they have had sitting on their desk for weeks?

It is now six months since ‘Your Waverley’ referred for its publication of incorrect nitrogen dioxide figures to Surrey Police to investigate. All we can hear is the sound of silence?

Has someone – somewhere contrived to ensure that Waverley residents choke on their own, and everyone else’s exhaust fumes in Farnham and die waiting for the police investigation to produce some answers?

You can read about it here:

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

At least one lane of the A31 will be closed for up to 28 weeks, to allow the Blightwells development to go ahead so there will be less air pollution? – Or maybe there will be more? Answers to

Screen Shot 2018-08-26 at 14.53.47.png

Here’s what Farnham’s graffiti artists have posted on development hoardings just in case anyone forgets it’s elephant in the room!

SURREY County Council’s area highways manager, John Hilder, has shed light on Crest Nicholson’s temporary access “haul road” from the A31 across the River Wey to the Brightwells site, and the anticipated lane closure on the eastbound carriageway of the Farnham bypass to facilitate the works.

Crest’s 2012 planning consent for Brightwells (WA/2010/1650) states: “Traffic congestion will be created on the A31 and associated parts of highway network not only during construction/dismantling of bridge and access but for entire East Street construction period of 2.5 to 3 years.”

However, responding to a question from Farnham Residents leader Jerry Hyman at the latest meeting of the Waverley Local Committee, Mr Hilder shared his “understanding” with councillors that the lane closure would only be in place during the construction and removal of the bridge, a process expected to take up to 28 weeks in total according to the 2012 consent, not for the entirety of the works on the wider scheme.

Crest Nicholson added in a statement: “One lane of the A31 was closed for a day for tree works in February 2018, and will be temporarily closed again later in the year for the creation of a new bridge. The bridge will be used to divert construction traffic off the A31,” added the developer.

“Waverley Borough Council, Surrey County Council and Crest Nicholson are currently in discussions over the length of this temporary closure and are keen to keep this as short as possible to minimise disruption. The closure is likely to be required from early August 2018 to mid-November 2018.

“Following this work, both lanes of the A31 are expected to be open as usual.”

The meeting, at the Hale Institute on March 9, was the first held by the Waverley Local Committee after an unconditional contract was signed between Waverley Borough Council and developer Crest Nicholson last month, allowing the Brightwells scheme to proceed and confirming Surrey’s £40m investment in the retail element of the East Street redevelopment.

Bourne resident actor Abigail McKern asked committee members what Surrey County Council and Waverley Borough Council Plan B was if the retail take up for the Brightwells project fails: “in light of 25,000 shops closing in the last 15 years.”

Waverley Brightwells sticker book launched!

Officers informed the meeting, Brightwells’ retail offering was an “evolving picture”, with only M&S Simply Food and Seasalt stores so far confirmed as tenants for the scheme’s 24 retail units.

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



Never has the division between Town and Gown been starker than in Godalming at (Charterhouse School) and in Cranleigh – at (Cranleigh School!) Both private schools want to flog off their Green Belt playing fields to secure their futures!

Here’s the public presentation that was given by Charterhouse School to justify building 132 houses on their Broom & Lees playing fields. Cranleigh School’s offering is still on the blackboard!


Screen Shot 2018-08-21 at 18.05.04.png

What struck us here at the WW was how out of touch / desperate was Charterhouse School’s justification for concreting over the green belt: Can’t help wondering if the Campaign for the Protection of some parts of Rural England, or perhaps even Protect ~Our Waverley, will have their say? Or, are they too busy girding their loins to stop development on the largest brownfield site in the borough at the Judicial Review due this Autumn?

The Broom and Lees Playing Field is Green Belt land. However, we believe that the proposed expansion creates a number of ‘Very Special Circumstances’ to justify this development, namely:

  • Providing new School places to widen choice in education
  • Improving the diversity and inclusivity of Charterhouse
  • Protecting and enhancing an established education facility
  • Protecting and enhancing a major local employer
  • Creating additional employment opportunities
  • Investing in and enhancing listed buildingsWithout the funding provided by the sale of Broom and Lees, the expansion and improvement of the School simply cannot proceed.

YOUR FEES ARE £32,364 a year for a day pupil! Surely you don’t have to pave over some of the finest playing fields of England to improve a school whose alumni include:



To name just a few!

(left) Jeremy Hunt Foreign Secretary.

(Right) Jonathan King Singer, songwriter, composer and.. lad about town.


Just to add insult to injury £174,000 of the 106 monies provided by the developers’ of Cranleigh’s new 450 Berkeley homes, now under construction, has been earmarked for… a new 3G Pitch for Cranleigh School! Alfold Football Club puts its best foot forward – whilst Cranleigh’s 106 monies go to A Cranleigh top fee-paying school!


Waverley Brightwells sticker book launched!


Waverley Web has launched the Blightwells Sticker Book – inspired by the recent article by Julia Potts in ‘Your Waverley’. We’ll keep the book updated every time a store is announced! Isn’t Sainsbury’s already there? And isn’t ASK closing restaurants? 


We here at WW were inspired by David Quick and his desire to get an answer from Julia Potts following the publication of ‘Your Waverley’ the borough’s very own newsletter – once called ‘Making Waves’ which underwent a makeover as the name was considered inappropriate as it sounded too confrontational!

Because he couldn’t get a pip or a squeak out of Julia Potts he was forced to turn to contact the developer Crest Nicholson direct. So let’s crowdsource the sticker book so we can keep the good people of Farnham updated!

Screen Shot 2018-08-22 at 15.56.27

Letting ‘Your Waverley’s’ head honcho have his say on Blightwells.


BUT DO WE BELIEVE Waverley’s new boy CEO, Tom Horwood?  – THAT IS THE QUESTION?

And.. when Waverley’s new 106 Officer arrives – will he be empowered to shine a light on all those 106 Agreements (Agreements with developers to spend money on infrastructure to mitigate the effects of development) in the areas where the effects of that development will be so keenly felt? Because if he is – he’s in for a BIG JOB!


Screen Shot 2018-08-06 at 10.34.23.png

Screen Shot 2018-08-06 at 10.36.17.png

Screen Shot 2018-08-06 at 10.36.32.png

Screen Shot 2018-08-06 at 10.36.48.png

Screen Shot 2018-08-06 at 10.37.06.png

Does his letter prompt more questions than answers?

Does Blightwells actually have planning consent yet?

Funny comment where he says “I don’t recognise the figure of 20m.”  He wouldn’t recognise too much about the figure – which was exactly £18m – the time, because he is still a new boy on the block and wasn’t actually around at the time all these figures were being aired publicly.

Is the whole borough confused about where the 106 monies go? Do they benefit the whole borough? Or, do they benefit the areas where developers are contributing to the housing and retail stock?

Because in Cranleigh there is much angst about several hundred thousand pounds from the Berkeley Homes (450 home) development, and monies from other developments, being contributed to provide improved sports facilities ( a 3G sports pitch) into Cranleigh Public School, a registered charity and one of the most expensive public schools in the country!

Another 462 houses for Farnham?



 Farnham Town Council has launched its public consultation on potential new housing sites in Farnham. They have to find at least another 450 houses over the next 15 years to comply with the revised Waverley Plan Part 1.
(Unless the current Judicial Review to the Plan reduces Waverley’s allocation of Woking’s unmet need – which could be as little as – oh – about 450!)

Here’s the map of Farnham showing the proposed new housing sites (all on brownfield) and their capacities. The other coloured sites are ones identified by Farnham in their previous 2017 Neighbourhood Plan.


Here is the breakdown of those sites – you can respond to Farnham’s consultation here.

Screen Shot 2018-08-21 at 12.59.41

At first glance, all we can say is well done for finding enough Brownfield sites and all within the built-up area boundary. It’s a shame the roads are so terrible that you can’t accommodate Cranleigh and the eastern villages allocation too!

Now we all know why ‘YW’ wanted to move its training services into the Memorial Hall.

Read more from the Farnham Herald here: IMG_2913.JPG

Honestly, we are not laughing – because it’s​ too damn serious but…


Residents could soon be launching a sweepstake on whose in line for the next Great Big Surrey Smash and Grab?

If your local ATM is not included in the list of ramraids on the sites already targeted below – then be vigilant – your town or village could be next! Or maybe, you are one of the lucky ones – and you don’t have an ATM anymore!


Screen Shot 2018-08-19 at 09.53.27.png

Farnham’s East Street after the smash and grab.


Screen Shot 2018-08-20 at 17.10.12.png

Here’s a Dear John letter to Surrey’s Police & Crime Commissioner who is currently away on holiday, but cannot wait to get back to answer the huge volume of e-mails that await him?

In the meantime, the great Surrey crash and grab continues, but thankfully residents are emptying some ATM’s before the raiders get to them – one raid only managed to steal a measly £200! Some areas are even thinking themselves lucky they don’t have an ATM anymore – because the Big Bank raiders got there before them – Nat West, Lloyds, etc…!

Dear Mr Munro…


FactCheck – Your Local Tory leaflet?


People Power or Political Power?

Never before have we seen such scrutiny applied to a piece of Conservative propaganda as this piece of fiction that was delivered in Central Godalming, and has caused quite a stir on the Godalming Community Facebook Group. Thanks, Elaine for the post!


Godalming Residents, the Green Oaks PTA and parents have been steaming at the idea that Cllr Andrew Bolton is taking credit for “allowing the school to remain open for a year”, generating 98 comments of outrage in the Facebook Group. Elaine asked the Group: “I thought the Liberal Dems councillor Paul David Follows was the main campaigner of keeping Green Oaks school open? Have I got that wrong?”


Screen Shot 2018-08-17 at 21.11.41

It was well known that the Conservatives wanted to close the school, which had caused them some headache over the years, ruining the Education Cabinet member Cllr Peter Martin’s Waverley statistics. No wonder Peter took every opportunity to brief against the school, and apparently urging fellow councillors that the closure was inevitable. This briefing then led to Jeremy Hunt issuing this unfortunate press release reported in the Sorry Advertiser:
Jeramy Hunt backs Green Oak school closure decision as public meeting called. Jeremy Hunt said: “although he sympathised with parents and children, he understood Surrey County Council’s decision. It is a great shame that Green Oaks CofE Primary School is set to close and I fully appreciate the concerns of parents who are understandably worried about what will happen to their children and where they will continue their education.”

Sometimes Jeremy you need to consult the actual people rather than your Tory cronies as to the will of the people!

Godalming Town Councillor Richard Wainwright jumped in to try and defend Peter Martin and Andrew Bolton and received very short shift!

Screen Shot 2018-08-21 at 17.24.41

Richard was also noted for taking credit for the Godalming Neighbourhood Plan, something he admitted was nothing to do with him, although he did apparently amend a line in it at the consultation stage. Bravo Richard!

Screen Shot 2018-08-21 at 17.22.58

Of course Green Oak parents are also furious that the Conservatives  say the school only has a years’ reprieve!

That’s  not what the parents have been told – and is hardly likely to encourage people to send their children there with its future in limbo!

If you receive an election leaflet, from whatever party, do send it in to us at WW and we will be happy to fact check it with you!

Our post yesterday asked if some Waverley councillors had been hit by the pre-election panic stick?


This particular Godalming Councillor most certainly has!

Gets interesting when Councillor Bolton jumps in talking in the third person.. so when he does deign to engage with the community it’s not even him!

Now here’s the real man behind the campaign to save Green Oak School. Councillor Paul Follows. Election season 2019 has begun?

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

Green Oaks School closure prompts emergency Town Meeting tonight.


Have ‘Your Waverley’s’ planners been hit by pre-election fever?

Have ‘Your Waverley’s’ planners been hit by pre-election fever?




Only days after Farnham Residents and a Liberal Dem- go on the attack over unsuitable development in the borough – every planning application except one is REFUSED!

Despite officers recommendation to grant everything on the Eastern Area Planning Committee and immediately afterwards on Southern Planning’s Agenda – councillors UNANIMOUSLY REFUSED EVERYTHING – except the expansion of cold store warehouses for storing fruit canes at Tuesley Farm, Godalming!

Never has there been such a U-Turn of views since that major one on the road to Damascus!

First to go down the Waverley plughole – was the application to build homes in the beer garden at Ewhurst’s Bull Pub. Developers want to remove pub extensions including the popular skittle alley and beer garden and replace with five homes.

The loss of the gardens, the proximity to homes, a huge loss of trees, in the middle of the Conservation Area, were all considered by Waverley planning wally’s as ” causing less than significant harm!”

What does that mean exactly – planning gobbledegook for –  yes, it will spoil the pretty Ewhurst green area, but no matter because it will increase Ewhurst’s housing supply and put another few notches on our five-year land supply.

Villagers were having none of it and spewed out 130+  letters to say so. They claimed it was an asset stripping exercise of a treasured community asset, which would cut the heart out of a community that was already producing its quota of new homes.

“To grant this would be a bad day for the borough and a bad day for Ewhurst,” said an objector.

Everyone on the planning committee, yes, everyone, spoke against the development and argued against officers, who claimed, “the benefit would outweigh the harm.” Councillor Kevin Deanus said Alfold residents met annually on his patch to grieve the demise of their local pub The Crown Pub saying officers’ claims that The Bull  would be “conserved and enhanced” by the development, was a nonsense.

Some called the developers “greedy” others argued the loss of 18 trees to “provide a big blob of property” would be a travesty!

Moments after it was UNANIMOUSLY REFUSED. Down went another application recommended for approval to convert stables into a home in Upper Ifold, Dunsfold. Officers referred to it as a windfall, councillors described it as a “rotten apple.”

Following swiftly on officers thought they were home and dry with a development to squeeze two homes into the back gardens of 114-118 Horsham Road, Cranleigh because a previous scheme was refused for three three-storey properties.  Arguing it was no longer backland development as the Crest Nicholson 120/+90=?? homes were under construction behind the Horsham Road in Longhurst Park!

Cries of ‘garden grabbing’, loss of more trees, the huge impact on neighbouring properties, and a harmful change to the to the area, was challenged by officers who claimed there were no highway objections and similar development had occurred nearby.

Cranleigh Councillor Liz Townsend argued that Cranleigh had already reached its target of 1,700 homes just a few years into the Local Plan. “And, where’s the bat survey for this important wildlife corridor, she asked?

Wow! Is election fever rearing its ugly head in ‘Your Waverley?’

To be continued…








Dear Mr Munro…


It will come as no surprise to anyone that Farnham has now been the latest target of ram raiders – as they have been operating all over Surrey in recent weeks, bagging squillions from the few remaining cash machines!

Screen Shot 2018-08-19 at 09.53.51.png

Screen Shot 2018-08-19 at 09.53.27.png

Here’s an open letter from one Farnham resident… to PCC David Munro who sums up how most of us feel, 

Screen Shot 2018-08-19 at 10.19.24.pngJust in case you don’t know who Mr Munro is. He is former Waverley Borough Councillor who climbed up the Tory greasy pole to Surrey County Council and then further up the money tree or do we mean the Monkey Tree to become Surrey’s Police and Crime Commissioner. He prides himself on his work to promote Pride Marches!

Screen Shot 2018-08-19 at 09.53.14.pngScreen Shot 2018-08-19 at 09.54.37.png

Just a few days ago we received this little missive from a Cranleigh resident.Screen Shot 2018-08-19 at 10.17.00.png


Is Waverley’s new boy concerned about his role on the planning committee​?



Paul Follows the new Liberal Democrat Councillor elected following  the sudden resignation of Simon Thornton, the recently disgraced Mayor of Godalming and member of ‘YW’ Executive, said on FACEBOOK that he had  deliberately waited a few days before posting on this because of his frustration after a recent  Joint Planning Committee (JPC)

He said:

Several weeks ago we were asked to review a development – the Woolmead in Farnham. 134 homes, no affordable housing (despite our apparently fantastic local plan demanding at least 30%) – and we were told that was because the developers had convinced the borough that the scheme was not viable (also known as they were not making enough money) with the affordable component. We were told an ‘independent viability assessment’ made that all clear – but we were not sent copies of that assessment. I voted against it – but in this incarnation of the council, the application was passed anyway!

So, we asked the officers to ensure that if any more came forward in the future with 0% affordable we wanted to see the full financial assessment as part of our papers. Within two weeks we get another one – this time in Haslemere. Now because these were put on pink paper (confidential) I am not allowed to go into the figures – but let’s just say most firms wouldn’t baulk at this kind of profit margin and then use the sentence ‘not financially viable’ when it comes to affordable.

I made the case that the expert assessment merely formally confirmed what the margin was, it did not and cannot make a judgement as to what level we think it is acceptable to remove the affordable housing numbers. That judgement was for elected councillors. I asked for the application to be rejected – for them to come back with at least one affordable residence because last time I checked there actually are numbers between 0% and 30%. The argument is always for NONE not LESS for some reason.

Several councillors agreed, but not enough. It passed!

Where and when will the Conservatives take a moral stand in this area?

The Conservatives had already watered down their local plan from 40% to 30% in the drafting stages – but now they keep exempting developers from even that!

Oh – and not a Social Housing (better known as Council housing) proposal to be found. Something we desperately need!

DEMAND MORE from your elected councillors because a great many of them are failing you and this community at every turn. Bring on May 2019 so we can start trying to get the council we deserve.

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 10.03.02Guess what? ‘Your Waverley’ intends to get smarter in future about the way it extracts money from developers! You read it here first … remember!



The Hewitts’ development in Cranleigh is granted … again … after Waverley’s head planning honcho offers a grovelling apology… with a caveat!


 Our favourite planning officer – Betty Boot; Aka Liz the Biz; Lily (couldobetta) Head of Planning  Elizabeth Simms… said

Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa –

to councillors and the applicants  (Miller Homes) for not supplying them with accurate information a week ago.

“this is an unusual inaccuracy, the information given to you is usually accurate in all respects.”

The issue arose due to questions posed by Cranleigh Councillor Liz Townsend on whether there were dormer windows on the back of properties causing overlooking at the proposed 120 home development at the former Hewitt’s Industrial Estate in Cranleigh?  A planning officer assured her there were not!

Hence the reason why the application was once again before them for determination!  

This particular scheme for a  three, maybe the four-storey block in Elm Bridge was dubbed by Councillor Kevin Deanus as –

“the worst designed buildings I have ever seen – and if it were in my Alfold area I  wouldn’t want it to be part of my  legacy.”

Now there’s some strong talk from a member of Waverley’s powerhouse – THE EXECUTIVE!

But we must not digress from BBoots apology for not getting it right on the night – (by the way, the officer responsible for making the mistake has been sacked after a month in the job! Wonder why there aren’t more?

She then went on to say: 

That, although an important piece of information was incorrect, the privacy of the cottages (Vine Cottages) wouldn’t be harmed by the buildings proposed as they were further away than the minimum distance normally allowed. Officers not getting facts right on dormers in the roof was not considered a valid reason to refuse – because the distance is greater than the WBC standards.

Well if you live in a little Cottage it makes a hell of a difference when you have Dormer windows in the roof at 2.5 storeys – (let alone 3/4) overlooking your patio, garden and bedroom. It doesn’t make any difference if it is 21 or 51mtrs – It is still overlooking!

But suffice to say, despite the further protestations by Councillor Townsend, Gerry Hyman, Councillor Paul Follows; John Ward and the outburst by Kevin Deanus and others,  when the dreaded word APPEAL was mentioned they were given the evil eye told – they couldn’t speak again. Down came the guillotine and the 4 min rule!

But Bramley’s By-Pass Byham had all the answers – as he usually does!! “People aren’t going to stand on chairs to look into adjoining gardens? saying; “I”m quite happy to support this application.” No doubt in return for a By-Pass in Bramley and a recreation centre?

Cranleigh Parish Council specifically asked for bat boxes to be provided on the development – here at the WW, we can think of a few people who could occupy them! But no doubt Cranleigh’s bats will go the same as our Brightwells bats here in Farnham? To the big bat house in the sky?

aven there are a few councillors left at Waverley that care about – the new town they have dubbed – ‘Poor Old Cranleigh.”



Stand by in Farnham with a defibrillator for Councillor Carole Cockburn!



Councillors have just voted to consult the public on amendments to the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, including sites for an additional 450 homes in the town!

We understand that the Farnham Town Clerk Iain Lynch, is reaching for the defibrillator for Councillor Cockburn who masterminded the Neighbourhood Plan!!
wwbreakingnews.jpgAnd here’s what met councillors as they left the Town Council Meeting!

Does this signal a new era for Farnham Town? Or, is it a new Farnham Dome?Screen Shot 2018-08-16 at 22.26.37.png

Waverley subsidises Hi-Tech Councillors?


Waverley recently published a list of Councillors expenses, which went to No.1 on our summer holiday reading list, knocking off the 2016-2017 from the top spot.
Waverley Councillor expenses 2017-2018

Waverley residents might like to ask Councillors what is the £246 they are paid as an Internet Charge? Don’t most Councillors have the internet?! Is it a little bung for being on the Executive? What could they all have in common?

It was especially odd to see such hi-tech councillors drawing this cash, councillors who in their day jobs might rely on a bit of broadband for their business.


Step forward Cllr Tom Martin (A Change and Configuration Manager at Wordline Global in Guildford) and Cllr Stefan Reynolds – local publisher of Vantage Point magazine. Certainly, busy people whose work relies on an internet connection – we are so pleased that they have something in common – the need to take Waverley coin to get them online. Bless their cotton socks!!


Guess what? ‘Your Waverley’ intends to get smarter in future about the way it extracts money from developers! You read it here first … remember!


Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 10.03.02

Despite the usual protestations of “we are between a rock and a hard place,” and “what a shame we cannot even provide a few affordable homes” and even a sour snipe at Cranleigh developers from Councillor Mary Forysewski that “at least these Haslemere one and two bedroom properties will be  cheaper than those being built  in Cranleigh where a small proportion of affordable homes were being built by developers of £1.2m and £1.7m properties –  “for heaven knows how much profit.”

So because these poor Haslemere developers can only manage to scrape together a profit of between 15% and 25% – according to another band of EXPERTS,  employed at enormous expense by ‘Your Waverley’ there will be no “affordable homes,” insufficient car parking spaces, little or no disabled spaces, insufficient electric charging points and nowhere for anyone to park a mobility scooter to take them to the nearby Haslemere station! And, possibly only food bins, because


Councillors were given the financial information on PINK papers, for the uninitiated, information that is not for public consumption, because we might come to a different conclusion? Suffice to say The Developers  convinced the planners that:
“in culmination with costs to remediate the contamination from the land, the planning infrastructure contributions, abnormal costs (such as the provision of a new substation and contiguous piling and acoustic fence provision along the railway boundary) and the quality build costs, the proposal would be unable to viably support on-site affordable housing provision or a commuted sum.”

But, they didn’t convince councillors including Gerry Hyman; John Ward; Liz Townsend; and even chairman David Else and certainly not Godalming’s new boy Paul Follows: Who argued the application should be refused until the developer could come up with at least a few affordable homes!

The Council appointed independent viability consultants to analyse the developer’s figures, unfortunately,  details are exempt and for Councillors Eyes Only!

What does it cost to cover the Councils’s infrastructure asks? A mere £200K on a £11M project!

Transport Contribution: (SCC) £41,640; SPA Contribution for a National Trust Warden in Hindhead! £40,000; Education: (Early Years) (SCC) £30,287;Education:(Primary again SCC) £42,969; Play Areas (WBC) £25,312.50; Playing Pitches (WBC)£27,562.50; Recycling (WBC) £99.50 for food bins: 

Total £207,870.50.

The good news is: Councillors have asked officers that in future they would like to be a great deal smarter – yes SMARTER, about the 106 contributions provided by developers towards infrastructure. SMARTER! We nearly fell out of our web. After consenting thousands of homes across the borough they decide that now, while the stable door is closing they want to be smarter?


Because soon it is to be replaced by something called CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) which is three times higher, which if applied to most developments in the borough will almost certainly result in NO AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION ON SITES IN FUTURE!!


Thank you fly tippers for dumping on Haslemere and thank you Surrey County Council for encouraging it?


The closure and part closure of many of Surrey’s recycling facilities combined with the increased charges for disposing of rubble brings about scenes like this captured below by a Haslemere resident.

Other people detritus is now blocking an access road to properties and will probably be a cost to the long-suffering ratepayers, who will, in the end, be responsible for its clearance.

If anyone recognises the wallpaper or anything else in this collection of refuse and rubble, please contact the Haslemere Community Board. We will attempt to be charitable and say someone may have paid to have this builder’s rubble removed but instead, to save time and money it has been dumped blocking accesses to properties. 

At last night’s Waverley Joint Planning Committee councillors and planning officers discussed clearing up an untidy site by granting planning permission to build 45 apartments in two blocks, at 5-21 Wey Hill, Haslemere, saying it would dramatically improve the entrance to the town! (The subject of another post to follow).

Imagine meeting this lot when you drive home!!

Screen Shot 2018-08-14 at 09.22.13.png

Oh! What a night – at Waverley planning “experts” roundtable​ tonight?


As one of our followers said to us recently:

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 09.47.15.png

So tonight another planning officer bites the dust – and he’s only been in the job a month!

You probably saw Richard Fox at ‘Your Waverley’s’ last Joint Planning Committee when the poor devil was asked questions that he was simply unequipped to answer about the Hewitts development in Cranleigh. Q. Did the four storey homes have dormer windows or not?  He said NO!

Suffice to say, they do, so councillors were misled, and as a consequence of an enjoyable early lunch!!! followed by a difficult interview – up goes the advert for another planning officer? And up goes the planning application again tonight – to be revisited? And… OUT GOES RICHARD! You can view it here: Thank heaven there are a few councillors left at Waverley that care about – the new town they have dubbed – ‘Poor Old Cranleigh.”

What baffles us here at the Waverley Web is? ‘YW’s” Planning officers consistently mislead councillors, or don’t answer their questions at all, which is the same thing? So why aren’t more of them going out through the big glass security doors, never to return?

And tonight?

Screen Shot 2018-08-13 at 10.03.02.png

Councillors are being asked to rubber-stamp this application for 45 one and two bedroomed flats by the railway at Wey Hill tonight. 

The Developers have convinced the planners that:
“in culmination with costs to remediate the contamination from the land, the planning infrastructure contributions, abnormal costs (such as the provision of a new substation and contiguous piling and acoustic fence provision along the railway boundary) and the quality build costs, the proposal would be unable to viably support on-site affordable housing provision or a commuted sum.”

Whilst the Council has appointed independent viability consultants to analyse the developer’s figures, unfortunately, all the details are exempt and for Councillors Eyes Only!

What does it cost to cover the Councils’s infrastructure asks? A mere £200K on a £11M project.

Transport Contribution


SPA Contribution


Education: (Early Years)


Education: (Primary)


Play Areas


Playing Pitches





Please don’t refuse it though, say the officers, as we have already counted 39 of these dwellings in the Local Plan to provide their Five Year Supply. As the Council has that Land supply – why not refuse it until you get a better brownfield offer?

Waverley Planners have just had a once in a blue moon moment!


Despite the odds being stacked in favour of a hill-top pile used as an office building in Haslemere making way for 27 new homes – councillors shunned Betty’s boot – and refused the controversial scheme on the edge of the town.

Wow! Shucks! Did the heat go to the heads of members of Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee last week when they voted by 14 to ? against converting offices at  Longdene Hose and build in its grounds in Hedgehog Lane? Chairpeople at ‘YW’ never actually announce what the vote is!!

Screen Shot 2018-08-08 at 19.30.13.png

Alfold’s Councillor Kevin Deanus said “this picture” of the proposed development site which  proposes further damage to the countryside – “says it all.”

Waverley officers saw no reason to refuse consent for a development in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Great Landscape Value. The site is beyond the town settlement and very close to Sturt Farm, Haslemere nearby and where 135 dwellings have been approved.

However, councillors did!  In response to councillor Steven Mulliner’s claims that with a 5-year land supply under its belt there was no requirement for development in areas of constraint in Waverley.

PO Louise Yandell warned councillors that  Haslemere’s housing allocation of  990 new homes during the life of the Local Plan was a “minimum and not a maximum figure.”

The usual Martini advocates of development – “Anytime, Anyplace, Anywhere, except in their own wards, gave good reasons why the scheme should be approved! They said they were fearful an appeal on a previous scheme to be heard in October would be approved.

The Tory cabal of Waverley Council’s yes men/women who will hopefully be hanging up their councillor (PSBD) identity tags soon  – Band; Goodridge; Carole Cockburn ; Anna James and not forgetting former chairman Peter Isherwood whose hand is never down and has been shunted out of the Chairman’s  seat followed by his vice-chairman CC – and we don’t mean Coco Chanel’s – after their distasteful remarks about the Eastern villages! He has been shunted to the right and she (CC) has been shunted off the bench altogether! Teach them to turn off their mics before they insult their residents?

For once even Farnham Residents’ Councillor Jerry Hyman’s argument about the lack of Appropriate Assessment under the Special Protection Area (SPA’s) issues found favour with some. Cranleigh’s Liz Townsend challenged officers’ claims that if the development went ahead there WAS  “sufficient mitigation?” But the officers and their legal chums stubbornly refuse to accept challenges that they might not be obeying an environmental law by carrying out appropriate assessment and are ducking under the comfort blanket provided by Natural England. You can read the Sweetman ruling by clicking on the link below.

Some claim that “Your Waverley’ and Natural England’S APPROACH  HAS  FOR MANY YEARS IGNORED ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.

Has a ruling by the European Court of Justice sent an Exocet missile into Waverley Towers?

The answer, of course, is NO! Because Waverley Borough Council has decided it doesn’t have to obey The European Court of Justice ruling – well that is until someone challenges them of course? Is that the sound of another Judicial Review we hear?

Funny – that nobody  mentioned the loss of office accommodation – wonder why – when according to Waverley Council’s data it  is becoming increasingly concerned having lost an amazing:

Screen Shot 2018-08-08 at 20.14.28.png

Not to mention that they receive not a single penny in 106 infrastructure contributions from these developments as well as the loss of business rates and premises where residents can WORK!



We’re back – and catching up!


While our team was away we received the comment featured below, and further comments from others, on the JR Local Plan and Dunsfold Aerodrome High Court hearings- here’s our rather belated response.

Dear Mr Ruffles

Apologies for the delay in replying but even the Waverley Web needs to take a break and hang out somewhere else!

We were not represented by any of our correspondents at the High Court on 12 July. However, that doesn’t mean our post was a work of fiction. We received feedback via a mole at Waverley Borough Council and from one or two boasts by the rather smug members of the PoW Campaign who didn’t realise they were confiding in the wrong person!!

Clearly, as we weren’t present, we can’t vouch for the veracity of everything we were told but have heard several accounts of the proceedings from people who were and having cross-referenced them we were happy to report with the caveat that if anyone who was present took issue with our post we would be happy to issue an amendment or clarification if necessary.

With regard to how well Waverley Borough Council was represented, we were told Waverley’s Chief Executive Tom Horwood; the Leader, Julia Potts;  Head of Planning, Elizabeth Sims and her sidekick “Sick As A” Graham Parrott were present in Court. Given the importance of the occasion – the potential voiding of Waverley’s latest Local Plan – a Plan, moreover, that has been many years and many hundreds of thousands of pounds in the making – so they bloody should be! If the Plan gets thrown out – thanks to CPRE and PoW – it will be CATASTROPHIC for both the Borough and its residents!  Particularly Cranleigh – whose countryside will go under concrete faster than knotweed can spread!
And, with that thought in mind, it was right and proper that the Council fielded its senior team. Indeed, given the importance you place on PoW’s arguments to the whole of Waverley and its Local Plan, we’re only surprised that you’re quibbling about Waverley fielding its movers and shakers! You really can’t have your cake, eat it and have some left over for a trifle, Mr Ruffles!

Who the Dunsfold Developer chose to rock up with is neither here nor there, as far as we’re concerned, because we, the Waverley taxpayers, aren’t footing the bill! However, we understand their CEO, AKA the Flying Scot and their lead on the Dunsfold development, Jerry Forrester, were present. It’s hardly surprising that a ‘gentleman from Trinity College’ was present given they’re the site owner! Bloody rude if he hadn’t shown his face if you ask us.

We love the phrase contrived to sit ‘hugger mugger’ with the WBC team. According to one of our moles, the Dunsfold Developer and his team sat on the right of the courtroom, very properly behind their legal eagles. It was the PoW supporters who plumped themselves down behind the Dunsfold Developer, despite their legal team being on the left side of the courtroom! What was all that about? 

However, it’s summer and the sun’s shining, we’re just back from our hols (the Charlotte’s Web Barn, in case you’re interested!) and we’re in a good mood.

Turning to your final paragraph, WBC has failed miserably, prior to the appointment of Julia Potts and Elizabeth Sims, to get its act together and produce a  Local Plan. Had it done so under the previous regimes of the unlamented Mrs Mary Orton-Pett, Councillor Richard Shut-the-Gates and Councillor Robert Know-less, Waverley wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today. Those three, burying their heads in the sand and sticking two fingers up to the government, has left WBC with a disastrous legacy which La Potts and Sims have struggled to overcome. It just goes to show, if you want something doing, ask a woman!

No one – least of all La Potts and Sims – want to inflate Waverley’s housing numbers, though it sometimes appears the latter tries hard –  but the fact remains that without an adopted Local Plan the entire borough is in deep do-do and at risk of even more development than under the current challenged Plan.

You may choose to think PoW’s motives are as white as the driven snow but we beg to differ – as pure as the driven slush more like! The only thing Bob Lies and his cronies care about is killing off the Dunsfold Development and in questioning the housing numbers – which WBC was forced to accept, under duress, in order to get an adopted Local Plan in place – they saw an opportunity to upset the Dunsfold decision. Whoopee! Never mind that no housing at Dunsfold Aerodrome means more housing in Cranleigh, the eastern villages and Farnham. Who cares about those towns? Certainly not the inappropriately named Protect our Waverley!

Screen Shot 2018-08-08 at 20.55.30.png


The Potty one is “so excited” that the redevelopment at Blightwells has begun.





I’m so excited – I almost Pirates of Penzance.


We nearly fell off our Web with helpless laughter as we hung suspended in a dark and dusty corner of Farnham this week – and we could hear the chuckles reverberating through the town.

Are we – Waverley taxpayers’ paying good money in council tax for this drivel to be printed by ‘Your Waverley’s’ spin machine called – ‘Your Waverley.’

Because if it was OUR Waverley ‘Your Waverley’ would be listening to the opposition that is rearing its head ever higher to us with the “vibrant new scene”  about to land in our midst!


• Bridge over the River Wey

Trees have been cleared along the A31 to make way for a new bridge across the River Wey, which will take construction traffic away from the town during the main works starting in 2019. Hoarding will go up around the site in August and there will be traffic management measures on the A3l, reducing to one lane and reducing the speed limit from 50 to 44 miles an hour until Christmas.

• Walk this Wey

To make way for the scheme there are also some planned footpath closures. The footpath that runs behind Dogflud Car Park, between South Street and the Leisure Centre is closed and re-routed. From 6 August until March 2019, Borelli Walk will close so the bridge can be built. New access schemes will be created within the completed scheme.

• New Wey in

Dogflud Car Park will be closed during the construction phase and will be upgraded, along with South Street Car Park, to provide modern accessible and safe parking. Other benefits include an additional £l.4 million to improve traffic flows at key junctions in the town centre, a new park and stride scheme and upgraded public transport infrastructure.

The leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for Brightwells. Councillor Julia Potts, was so excited she put on her best bonnet and said:

“I am so excited that work has now started to progress the scheme and residents can see that things are happening. Once the hoarding is up and the bridge starts to get built there will be some disruption but I hope that people will see that it will be worth it in the long term. Farnham is desperate for a cinema, new homes and a retail offer”.

What a load of drivel. 

The Campaign For The Protection of some parts of rural England’s hypocrisy​ is legendary!


While Waverley’s green fields and green belt are currently sinking, or about to sink under concrete, this once-respected national organisation is whining about the lack of affordable housing and the need for local authorities to grant permissions on brownfield sites!


The very same hypocritical outfit that has joined forces with the local NIMBYs – some of whom are DEVELOPERS themselves, to take ‘Your Waverley,’ to the High Court – limiting their own costs to just £10,000 while wasting shedloads of our council tax, simply because they are supporting a Local Plan which includes development in their backyards at Dunsfold Aerodrome. One of the biggest brownfield sites this side of London!


Does ‘Your Waverley’ have to manage a crisis now the High Court has allowed challenges to the Local Plan to be heard at a Judicial Review?

All the Rumpoles will have their wheelbarrows at the ready to trouser the taxpayers’ cash being poured into their oversized pant pockets – however, what’s the old saying – “he who laughs last laughs longest.” Because one of Waverley’s famous four (Milford Man) who challenged the Local Plan – has had his fingers slightly singed  – and his bank balance reduced, by a High Court decision to award Waverley their costs!

Oops – the judge also refused to give the other challengers the assurances they crave that their costs will be limited to £10,000 for a judicial review to be held in the Autumn! 

The mutter in the gutter around Alfold/Dunsfold/Hascombe/Loxwood/Chiddingfold is that some of the parish councils who have used their money to prime the legal pump have had enough and are not stumping up any more of their parish precept to fund the ‘impossible fight!’

In the meantime, while the birds sing, and the planes continue to fly at the airfield – Cranleigh is turning into one big building site and the only caterpillars are of the tractor species.

Here’s who is reading the Waverley Web.


Screen Shot 2017-07-22 at 00.11.46While we are away sunning ourselves in foreign climes we thought you might like to know which countries now regularly follow the comings and goings of ‘Your Waverley?

Who says the Waverley Web cannot reach the parts that others reach?

So don’t forget to subscribe or follow to hear what is happening in and around the Waverley Borough. Because, we may be away resting, but we are still posting and back soon!!




After 50 years in Farnham – another major chain store​ ​ closes its doors!


Last Saturday saw the DOROTHY PERKINS store in Farnham close its doors for the last time.

This brings to an end a 50 year-long association of the popular store with our town!  – Here are just a few of the others – but fear not there will be dozens of new shops opening soon in the Woolmead and Blightwells developments (with our money) – won’t there?

But .. according to the DP’s store staff – another nice shop is due to take its place?

Here’s what Farnham people think about our local authorities cunning plan to invest our money in more shops and restaurants.

The number of business and retail units in Waverley being turned into homes is reaching alarming proportions.

And… what about Guildford! Where two flagship stores – House of Fraser and Debenhams boasting half a million square feet of retail floor space look set to fail!

Whatever the outcome of takeover talks going on as we type, questions will remain over the sustainability of these two anchor department stores in Guildford, and there will be concerns about the possible economic and fiscal implications, locally, should either fail.

Additionally, current council plans (Guildford BC) for up to 420,000 square feet of new retail space on North Street might now look even more doubtful, especially following the Local Plan examiner’s remarks querying the logic of this allocation, despite GBC’s planning department’s defence of their decision.

 Tory councils, with the backing of Surrey County Council, are so arrogant as they play Monopoly with our money! Can’t they read the runes?

House of Fraser, Guildford was refitted and relaunched as a new store in 2000. It was previously known as the Army & Navy, and before that Harvey’s. The store includes the Jellicoe Heritage Roof Garden, a water garden designed and installed by the late Sir Geoffrey Jellicoe in 1958 and where customers could once sit and eat enjoying a panoramic view across the town.  It was closed for health and safety reasons. It has a grade II listing from English Heritage and, according to the House of Fraser website, has a dedicated gardener.

See also: Comment: It Is True – The Number of Empty Shops in Guildford Is Increasing

Just a little thought on Woking’s unmet need straight from our sun lounger?


Screen Shot 2018-08-06 at 09.51.16.png

There’s nothing like sitting on a sun lounger sipping a Pink Gin listening to the waves lapping against the rocks to get the old brain cells working is there?

Here’s a thought for you which we haven’t seen expressed anywhere to date but I think it is a point which could do with an airing.

Dunsfold Aerodrome was in the latest version of the local plan right from the start, wasn’t it? So it has been tested and consulted on at every stage.


When the Woking unmet need figures were introduced and then confirmed by the Inspector in 2017 Waverley’s answer was to add numbers TO THE REST OF THE BOROUGH including Farnham. See MM3 on page 7 below.

So in the unlikely scenario that CPRE wins its challenge to the local plan on the Woking unmet need point, people should be asking themselves why should it be Dunsfold Aerodrome that gets thrown into doubt and removed from the local plan (the PoW case) and not all the additional houses which were bolted onto Farnham (and undermined their neighbourhood plan if you remember) and Cranleigh and various other places including some in the Green Belt?

In this case, it should really be “last in, first out”

Just a thought? Back home soon when we will reveal all the countries reading the Waverley Web!

You can read it for yourself here:

Schedule of Main Modifications

Much ado about the location of a new Cranleigh Leisure Centre.


Since ‘Your Waverley’s commitment to spend £12.7million on a new leisure centre – there has been much talk about where it should go? Should the Village Way centre be demolished and rebuilt, or refurbished and improved?

Rumours are rife about re-siting it on the proposed new private nursing home site in Knowle Lane now there is to be no replacement village hospital – or building it on the Snoxhall Playing fields?

Neither is an option as the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust has tied up the former parish-owned land for a private nursing home development and the parish council which has been shafted by the charity, has tied up all the remainder of the parish land it owns into a Community Land Trust, to ensure it doesn’t happen again! This was prompted by the scurrilous behind the scenes dealings of a former parish council chairman who wanted to build on the nearby Beryl Harvey field donated to the village by the late Gordon Harvey, in memory of his wife. The benefactor’s son kiboshed the bid, with villagers backing, at a public meeting, and the plan to build houses on the allotment/conservation area in Knowle Lane was subsequently scrapped. 

We are reliably informed by villagers in the East, that as with the “replacement cottage hospital,” which will not now go ahead, local fundraising also paid for the creation of the original Cranleigh Leisure Centre, so villagers believe they are entitled to have their say?

We had hoped to bring you a  link to all the possible plans for the Village Way site – which should be open for consultation to allow Cranleigh residents to decide! But it has been removed by Waverley Council!

After 6 months of the details of all Waverley’s leisure improvements being online, the council took down the presentation after residents started to discuss it on Facebook. They realised it contained figures to be paid to a third party before a deal had been done.
Luckily residents here in Godalming had started sharing screenshots.

Don’t click on the link because it won’t work – a bit like Waverley Borough Council!


Blightwells here we come!!


And guess where the developer’s money’s going? … To fund improvements to Godalming and Farnham Leisure Centres and build a new £12.7m centre in Cranleigh New Town!


WHY? Because there’s an election coming!


Screen Shot 2018-08-01 at 09.08.44.png

We couldn’t have put it better ourselves Neil!



Screen Shot 2018-07-27 at 23.19.49.png

Need a job?



Screen Shot 2018-08-01 at 17.36.40.png

Enter a caption


Thank heaven there are a few councillors left at Waverley that care about – the new town they have dubbed – ‘Poor Old Cranleigh.”


Just a handful of councillors – abstained – from supporting the layout and landscaping of Miller Homes consented application to build 120 three and four storey homes on the former Hewitts Industrial Estate in Elmbridge Road – why didn’t they vote against it is anyone’s guess? Do they get to feel Betty’s Appealing Boot if they dare oppose a scheme which was described by a string of councillors as:


Here’s `Kevin Deanus Councillor for Alfold.


Screen Shot 2018-07-30 at 19.20.19.png


Screen Shot 2018-07-30 at 19.21.00.png

However, Waverley was between a rock and a hard place after a Government Inspector over-ruled its refusal and allowed the application to turn the former light industrial estate into a housing estate! But surely with a bit of negotiation, they could have persuaded the developer to provide something more suitable?

Even Elizabeth Townsend – Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council appeared unperturbed that the former industrial estate, which will further urbanise the once rural area of west Cranleigh, and change it beyond recognition. But she did voice her concerns about landscaping near the entrance, the treatment of the ancient woodland, and the possible overlooking of cottages nearby by such large buildings.

However, 17 members of the Joint Planning Committee granted the reserved matters with four abstentions – so life goes on over there as another set of bulldozers and HGV’s roll into -“Poor Old Cranleigh!”

Here’s the village’s design statement for what it’s worth! And – here’s a decent Alfold Councillor Kevin Deanus telling the planners exactly what he thinks of the plan!

Screen Shot 2018-08-01 at 09.20.38.png

What is the most well-used phrase at ‘Your Waverley’s council meetings?




If, you get the answer right. 


We will put you out of your misery… the phrase most often used in response to councillors questions by officers, the leader, and the executive is…


And.. if ‘we are satisfied’ then so must you be?


%d bloggers like this: