Another Waverley cover-up using smoke and mirrors?


Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 00.18.48.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-20 at 00.19.06.png

Hi Waverley Web,

I don’t know if anyone really looks at their council tax bills, however, I was intrigued by how a mostly 3% increase in most charges apart from Police and Crime Commissioner‘s 5.3% could result in an overall 5.5% increase to our bills. Enter Excel Spreadsheet, plugging in last year’s figures and this year’s figures.

Guess what I found!

The Adult Social Care element hasn’t gone up by 3% but by 63%. Whilst a £66 increase is not a large amount I felt a bit miffed!

How can this be… a mistake someone pressed a 6 and a 3 by mistake…… Rang the council and they are sending out a letter to explain only to those that complain!! Got a fudged story about 2 elements to the charge and the 3% increase only refers to one of them…. Can’t be right, can it?????

Thought you might like to be in the loop!!


P.S. Sent the story to Eagle radio station, Farnham Herald and the BBC Surrey…. Transcript below:

“I don’t know if anyone is looking into this or even if its newsworthy, the new Council Tax Bills have landed indicating mostly a 3% increase across most categories. However, my Adult Social Care charge has supposedly risen by only 3% as well although its gone from £104.06 to £170.65 which I worked out to be a 63% increase.

Whilst this is not a large increase in monetary terms (in comparison to the rest of the bill), it will see an incremental increase year on year. If the charge has justifiably been increased by this amount then my issue with the bill is that they are not being honest in stating the true % increase!

Upon ringing to enquire they appear to be giving a very unsatisfactory answer saying the 3% is indicative of only 1 element in the additional charge and that letters are being sent out to those that complain/ask about the rise. Personally I think they’ve made a mistake and rather than admit it (having to re-do everyone’s Council Tax Bill) they are trying fudge the answer to circumvent the issue!

I would be grateful if you could investigate the matter and publicise it such that those responsible are held properly accountable to those paying the bill.”

WW: Properly accountable! You can not be serious? ‘Your Waverley’ be properly accountable?

Nelson will get his eye back first!

In memory of what might have been in Farnham?


Remember this Press Release?


Press Release from Council Leader Julia Potts, 5th Sept 2016, celebrating works on the extension to Farnham’s Memorial Hall completing in September 2017!juliapotts_xmas

“The Memorial Hall is an incredible tribute to Farnham’s history and the council is committed to enhancing the space for all. The plaque commemorating those in the community who sacrificed their lives during the First World War has been safely removed and will be reinstated into the new (sic) refurbished hall when it reopens in September 2017.”


Waverley Press Release 14th March 2018 :
Delays to Memorial Hall opening

The opening of the Memorial Hall is to be delayed following recent weather conditions impacting on the project timetable.
The project was already behind schedule, due to difficulties in procuring the right materials for the build last year. Unfortunately, the council is now faced with considerable delays to the Farnham Memorial Hall refurbishment.
To fully understand what is required to finish the refurbishment the council commissioned an independent survey. The survey has highlighted that, due to the poor weather conditions, a considerable amount of remedial work is also required. This is in addition to the work required to complete the project.

Councillor Jenny Else, Portfolio Holder for Health, Wellbeing and Culture, said:

”I cannot express how disappointed and upset I am that the project is not only much further behind than we expected, but also requires a lot of additional work to rectify damage that has been caused by the weather. I am concerned that this is only going to worsen due to the heavy rainfall that has been forecast for the coming weeks.
“This will also come as a disappointment to the services and the people that will be based in the hall when it is finished. We have informed them of the situation and will continue to provide them with the support they need during this frustrating time.
“We are now considering how to move forward. Sadly we cannot give a revised estimate about when the hall will be open until our consultant and the contractors have identified what remedial work is required.”


So tell us Aunty Elsie – who exactly has cocked this one up?

Have you donned your camouflage outfit in readiness to miss the flack flying?

Now here’s SCC’s answer​ to the county’s Surrey’s mounting pot-hole crisis!


Here’s what Surrey County Councillor Colin Kemp says:

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 20.41.05.png

Well! There you are then!  Surrey residents our expectations are just too high! Get it?

But it is spendingScreen Shot 2018-03-11 at 20.40.55.png:



Instead of planting flowers in Surrey pot-hole ridden roads. A new sub-aqua club has been formed!


Surrey County Council’s sham consultation to close Godalming School.


Anxious parents and supporters lined up to demand answers about the future of Green Oaks School in Ockford Ridge, Godalming.

 Surrey County Council announced a consultation to close the school due to falling numbers, difficult Ofsteads and the inability to find an Academy to take it under its wing.



Anxious parents filled the hall to learn what the future holds for Godalming youngsters. 

“Plenty of questions – but no answers!”

Said, one observer: 

“I’ve been to a lot of public meetings over the years but tonight’s about the future of Green Oak school was by some distance the worst I’ve ever sat through. Shockingly poor performance by Surrey County Council and the Diocese of Guildford. Pretty much a total failure to answer any of the excellent questions from a  hall packed with anxious parents, teachers and well-wishers. It was quite obvious that this was a box-ticking exercise and that as Surrey has failed to find a suitable Academy, in just in 9 months time – (July)- Green Oaks will be forced to close! 

They had the brass-neck to stand up and assure parents that there were 100 places in local schools, whilst refusing to name a single one. They cited declining pupil numbers as a contributory factor, but failed to acknowledge that they themselves blocked the school from taking admissions last year.

This is looking at best like government policy designed to punish children or at worst a nasty cynical little stitch-up. Why weren’t the people who know what is going on present?  It was evident, within minutes, that their robots were malfunctioning and could answer next to nothing.”

 Waverley’s new Councillor Paul Follows – the school is in his ward, who was there to witness the proceedings, said:

“What we all faced was a wall. A wall of law, a wall put up by people not present at the meeting and most of all a wall of unanswered questions – which considering a similar meeting took place in Ripley last night and many people had sent questions in preparation, I found it both frustrating and utterly inexcusable.

Whatever your view on the potential closure of the school and it’s history, making the consultation real and based on transparency and facts is extremely important.  I intend to assist parents in getting a meeting with the Regional Education Commissioner so we can try to get some answers.”

County Councillor Penny Rivers (Lib Dem) reported the meeting on her blog here.

She said: “It was standing room only. Parents and teachers and members of the community asked questions of the SCC officers and the Diocesan representative. I think it would be fair to say that people did not think their questions were answered. But then these Officers were just doing their job while the decision makers, Council Leader, David Hodge, and the Bishop and the Regional Schools Commissioner must have had something better to do because they were absent!”

My question was, “This room is packed full of people who care about their children, this school and this community. But, the shame is the absence of those who make the decisions. Were they invited? Would they have come?” My question was not answered.”

The meeting was packed with local Conservative Councillors – but not a single one either spoke or asked a question. Shame on them! With both Milford and Loseley Field schools full, just where will these children go?

What can you do? Start by  signing this petition:

The official Surrey County Council consultation is here.


Virgin caring for Farnham…just! But… what do the changes mean for Cranleigh?


Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.18.46

Virgin Care is to continue providing adult community services in one corner of Surrey after winning a contract extension.

Under the deal –  agreed recently – Virgin Care will continue to provide services to Surrey Heath Clinical Commissioning Group’s population, plus those living in and around Farnham for another year.


Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.29.31Q So where does this leave the new private nursing home proposed for Cranleigh?

    Q  And exactly who will have access to the community beds Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust has been promising the town for over 20 years?  

Virgin Care provided services to the whole of western Surrey until last April. At that point, CSH Surrey took on services in the North West Surrey Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area. From next month services in Guildford and Waverley will pass from Virgin Care to a consortium of the Royal Surrey County Hospital Foundation Trust and local GP’s.

Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.36.44.pngScreen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.37.24

So, £328,000 was extracted from our health economy because the powers that be couldn’t conduct its procurement process properly!

This left  Virgin Care covering just the 95,000 Surrey Heath population and the area around Farnham, a town of 40,000 people.

Governing body papers for North East Hampshire and Farnham CCG for January show local leaders had been concerned that the much-reduced contract would not be attractive for Virgin Care because of the loss of economies of scale and that the company might serve notice on the CCG.

But in a joint statement, Surrey Heath and North East Hampshire and Farnham CCGs said a £10.8m contract had been agreed with Virgin Care to continue for another year, based on the previous year’s spend but with a small uplift for inflation.

It said: “Both localities are fully developing plans for community services in light of the North East Hampshire and Farnham vanguard and Surrey Heath new model of care, and continue to do so within the Frimley integrated care system. Our intention is to ensure the market is engaged when appropriate as part of this process,” 

Ten of the Virgin Care-run inpatient beds at Farnham Community Hospital are used by patients from the Guildford and Waverley CCG area, including some requiring rehabilitation after stroke.

 So exactly where does this leave Cranleigh’s long-held hopes and dreams?… And why is the town, that raised millions of pounds for community beds,  still waiting for a planning application promised in 2017?

Has the East’s Surrey County Councillor been on the whacky baccy?



When the BBC lunchtime news featured a clip mistakenly labelling the Leader of Surrey County Council, David Lodge, instead of  David Hodge, did they mean to say … Dis-Lodge or maybe they meant Dis-Loyal?

Because, judging from Cranleigh & Ewhurst Surrey County Councillor Andrew Povey’s latest tweet his campaign to oust the Leader is gathering momentum and, as we all know, there’s nothing good ever come out of Momentum (AKA the really nasty arm of the Labour Left)!

First, that poseur Povey tweets that the man at the helm of good ship Surrey has fallen asleep at the wheel! Then he compares our very own Surrey County Council with the bankrupt builder Carillion! Next, he goes off on one advising voters to be wary of supporting Independent candidates, claiming they could be Marxists or a member of a far-right group!

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 22.24.00.png

Does Cranleigh & Ewhurst really back this disgraced politician’s putrid views or are local residents so lethargic and switched off they simply don’t care who represents them? More likely, they have very short memories and, if that’s the case, we, at the Waverley Web, are going to take them on a much-needed trip down memory lane!

Back in the day, way back when in the era that Cranleigh & Ewhurst residents have clearly forgotten (we’re talking about September 2011 in case you’re wondering), the then Leader of Surrey County Council Dr Andrew Poseur announced he was standing down from his position having just sacked his deputy leader, David Hodge. Dr Poseur claimed he was stepping down in October 2009 in order to ‘develop his business interests’ and in a typical self-congratulatory speech went on to eulogise about the Council’s achievements under his leadership: I am proud of what the council has achieved during my leadership and firmly believe the authority is well placed to become a truly world-class organisation. I believe the foundations we have set in the past two years mean the council can now go on to even greater things and whoever takes over as the leader can look forward to my support as they continue this work.’

Huh? Who was he trying to kid?

Eber Kington, Surrey County Councillor for Epsom and Ewell North said at the time, ‘Mr Povey did not step down but has been kicked out amid a continuing lack of confidence and disagreements with deputy leader, David Hodge. The idea that he’s taken this time to look after his business is nonsense – he’s been kicked out. More than half of the Conservatives told him to go and it’s not for the first time. There was a vote of no confidence a couple of months back. Povey has been responsible for some of the most damaging and unpopular decisions of the Conservative administration …’

Has there ever been a more damning indictment?

And now, six years on, Dr Poseur’s crawled is busy making trouble for the man who took over from him – so much for giving ‘whoever takes over as leader … gets my support’! The Waverley Web is no fan of David Hodge but the idea that Dr Poseur should be resurrected to dance on Hodge’s grave is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

We strongly recommend that the residents of Cranleigh & Ewhurst take a long, hard look at Dr Poseur’s record because no good whatsoever will come of their support – or for that matter their lethargy towards – this man who clearly has an axe to grind when it comes to David Hodge.

Our advice to Mistress Milton is that she steps in before Dr Andrew Poseur brings the local Tory party into even more disrepute than it is currently enjoying. Trouble is, the Tory Party doesn’t like to wash its dirty linen in public which means they leave it in the bottom of the laundry basket where it festers and – eventually – manages to walk out by itself!

So there you have it, Annie, you need to take a leaf out of Mary Martin’s book and WASH THAT MAN RIGHT OUT OF YOUR HAIR! For all of our sakes, Anne you need to open your mouth and sing at the top of your voice:

I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
And send him on his way.

I’m gonna wave that man right outa my arms,
I’m gonna wave that man right outa my arms,
I’m gonna wave that man right outa my arms,
And send him on his way.

Don’t try to patch it up
Tear it up, tear it up!
Wash him out, dry him out,
Push him out, fly him out,
Cancel him and let him go!
Yea, sister!

I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
I’m gonna wash that man right outa my hair,
And send him on his way.

You can’t light a fire when the woods are wet,
You can’t make a butterfly strong,
Hmm, hmm!
You can’t fix an egg when it ain’t quite good,
And you can’t fix a man when he’s wrong!
You can’t put back a petal when it falls from a flower,
Or sweeten up a fellow when he starts turnin’ sour
Oh no! Oh no!

If his eyes get dull and fishy,
When you look for glints and gleams,
Waste no time,
Make a switch,
Drop him in the nearest ditch!
Rub him out of the roll call,
And drum him out of your dreams
Oho! Oho!

I went to wash that man right outa my hair,
I went to wash that man right outa my hair,
I went to wash that man right outa my hair,
And sent him on his way.

She went to wash that man right outa our hair,
She went to wash that man right outa our hair,
She went to wash that man right outa our hair,
And send him on his way!


The Waverley Web puts up the WANTED sign and guess what? Up pops a Povey on the BBC!

Screen Shot 2018-03-11 at 22.27.28

Just a little conundrum on the council tax front – over to you Mr Controller?


What exactly is the true percentage increase we are all paying in council tax this year?



A little missive we have received from one of our followers – 

Dear Waverley Web,

I received my 2018/19 Council Tax Bill in the post today.

My bill indicated a total increase of 5.5% over last year, which didn’t make much sense because the various sub-components had only gone up by 3.0% to 5.3%, so how could the total be 5.5% higher?

So I got my calculator out along with last year’s bill and started checking it.

  • The first mistake was the Surrey County Council bit (excluding Adult social care), which I was told had gone up 3.0% from last year to £2181.50 this year (I’m band G in Farnham). Last year I paid SCC £2115.19, so the actual increase works out at 3.1% However, this error didn’t explain why my total bill was up 5.5%.
  • Second error – Surrey Adult Social Care, which I was told had also gone up 3.0%, last year I paid £104.06, this year I’ve been billed £170.65. This works out as an annual increase of 64%, not 3.0%!

Currently, I’m unsure as to whether the percentage increases are correct and the amount(s) wrong, or whether the amount(s) are correct in which case the percentage increases are wrong. I will contact Waverley’s Council Tax Team next week, to seek clarification on my personal bill (ie as to whether my Adult social care bill should be £170.65 or 103% or £104.06 ie £107.18), but I do wonder if there is a wider issue here?

Am I alone in receiving a Council Tax Demand that contains errors, or have other (even all) residents of Waverley received Council Tax Bills containing similar errors?

If the error in my bill has been repeated across Waverley – then Waverley may have to reissue all of its council tax bills!  However, they may need to go further and explain why they are misleading their residents over the real magnitude of this year’s increases! 64% is a huge increase, especially in these times of low wage rises. Maybe a 64% increase is justified (even I’m aware of the funding pressures on adult social care), if so then Waverley/Surrey should be honest about the real increase and provide the justification for that increase to its residents, rather than pretending that the increase is only 3.0%

Over to you (whoever you are)!

Thank you, Mark, for contacting the Waverley Web. We would like to ask Waverley Borough and Surrey County Councils to explain the rationale behind the questions that you pose, however, this is impossible as the Waverley Web is blocked from entering the council’s computer system! Can’t think why! However, we will forward your letter to a couple of councillors in the hope that we may get a sensible explanation.
It is widely known said that Waverley is not good at presenting anything numerical, as no one there can count! it mainly relies upon unidentified ‘experts’ and hopeful assumptions, irrespective of common sense or the law. It appears that they are long past the point of caring what people think.

More to follow.

Kind Regards, The team at Waverley Web.

Just in case you try to access the police website – s is what you get: You couldn’t make it up!tScreen Shot 2018-03-12 at 18.54.37.png

Will a new car park and increased charges put even more pressure on Cranleigh’s residential​ roads?


Screen Shot 2018-02-09 at 13.23.20.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 10.26.11

Charges for the Snoxhall Playing Fields Car Park are expected to generate around £60,000 a year of much-needed cash for Cranleigh Parish Council.

Administering and  providing warden services, for the car park, which was previously free, will also generate around  £15,000 income for ‘Your Waverley.”

At the same time, the council is considering ways of preventing unsocial parking around the borough’s towns and villages by introducing or extending double yellow lines! It also intends adding more parking restrictions right across the borough of Waverley.

Does this mean that even more residential roads in and around the borough will be liberally peppered with cars?

Residents have been asked to respond to Waverley’s new parking review.

17.12.01 – Snoxhall may be avoided if charging plan persists copy

Let us hope some of those complaints are against By-Pass Byham, Peter Isherwood, ​and Carole Cockburn?



Formal investigations have been launched against 14 Waverley Borough Councillors – and the list is growing by the day!

The council’s monitoring officer Herr Taylor has been investigating complaints, ‘we have ways and means of making you talk,’ the council’s standards panel heard recently. Some are still being investigated, including those against borough and parish councillors

Some have been accused of not disclosure of pecuniary interests which mean they were not in a position to make unbiased decisions!

However, the most common allegation levelled against Waverley councillors is their failure to “treat others with respect,” with the majority of complaints coming from one councillor against another, either verbally or in e-mails, or comments posted online. No prizes offered by the Waverley Web for guessing who this is?

Mr Taylor said, “electronic communications can be treated, and widely transmitted in just a few moments and then read and shared with an audience the original author may not have intended. This combined with the absence of tone of voice and context makes electronic communications far more likely to lead to complaints, than any other form, especially when sent in haste.”

Independent Investigators – are currently looking into three of the most severe allegations.

The Chairman of the Standards Board,  Councillor Michael Goodridge, who prides himself on never having to stand in an election in his Wonersh ward, and regularly falls asleep during council meetings, doesn’t believe there is a problem at ‘Your Waverley.’ Surprise, surprise!


But then he can always be relied upon to sweep almost every Waverley wrongdoing under      Waverley Tower’s carpets!  

Our spiders are finding it difficult to find enough space to breathe under them, let alone procreate and increase our little band of arachnids. 

Our Annie wades in to put a bridge over Cranleigh’s troubled waters!


It’s no news to anyone in the borough of Waverley that the East of the borough is getting more than its fair share of development,  some of which is to be built on flood plains! In addition, Cranleigh and the surrounding villages regularly flood and burst water pipes are commonplace, whatever the weather!

So Cranleigh’s very own watchdog is wagging its tail on behalf the townsfolk and is calling in the A-Team – non-other than Mistress  Anne Milton, who we all know, is not adverse to putting her whip across the backs of those in high places. Perhaps, she can get some sense of Thames Water and the Environment Agency! Cranleigh people live in hope!


Screen Shot 2018-03-08 at 09.48.39.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-08 at 09.48.09.pngScreen Shot 2018-03-08 at 09.47.58.png



Godalming - River Wey under Bridge Street


It’s all water under Godalming Town’s bridge – but there will be no infrastructure monies to help alleviate flooding


There is no hope – there is no CIL.

The Cranleigh Civic Society’s concerns which the Waverley Web highlighted yesterday are being shared by other parts of the borough – including Godalming.

A bitter pill to swallow over CIL?

Godalming Town Council admits the same dilemma. It will meet its housing target before September 2018 so there will be no Community Infrastructure Levy to spend.

Here’s an extract from a recent Godalming Town Council minutes!

Screen Shot 2018-03-06 at 13.02.58.png


A bitter pill to​ swallow over CIL?


Screen Shot 2018-03-05 at 16.54.34.png

A brilliant article from The Cranleigh Civic Society  poses some interesting questions for ‘Your Waverley.’

Upon some of which, we have commented.

Cranleigh Civic Society (CCS) received a grumbling letter; a grumbling letter. You know the type, it was probably signed ‘Disgusted of Dunsfold’ and it went something like this:

Let’s talk about Community Infrastructure Levy now, at last, we have a LOCAL PLAN, but what does this mean?

An agreed LOCAL PLAN gives our planners at Waverley Borough Council the power to control future housing development; they can plan for the development of new infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, hospitals etc and, very importantly, it enables the Borough Council to charge house builders a COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY, known as CIL for short.

What is CIL?

CIL raises monies towards the cost of the new Infrastructure needed for the developments to go ahead. What a wonderful step forward we all exclaim!! And so it is. But what of the housing already approved? approaching 2000 houses throughout the Borough. Well, unfortunately:

CIL is not retrospective.

How much will Waverley charge?

So as the consultation period is still running, there is no CIL Schedule!

According to WBC’s website, Waverley’s draft proposal sets a CIL rate of £395/ Sq Metre of floor area for all new housing, (about £40,000 on an average 3-bed house), except, quite reasonably, for ‘Affordable Housing’ where there is no charge. So, taking the 35% of Affordable Housing the Borough is committed to build away from the approximately 2,000 houses so far approved, there will be a loss of CIL to the tune of at least £60 MILLION pounds! £60 MILLION pounds that will NOT be available to improve our ROADS, our SCHOOLS, our HOSPITALS, our BOROUGH!!

How could this have happened we may ask?

WW It happened because our planning officers at Waverley, under the direction of the Infamous Mrs MOP, Richard Shut-the-Gates and Robert Knowless, failed to come up with a plan that satisfied the Government’s criteria for a LOCAL PLAN.

How a Local Plan is developed by the Borough Planners

The basic criteria affecting local residents, as council tax payers, was to identify suitable sites for new housing. This has to satisfy central Government’s housing policy, a requirement that was for about 350 houses a year until 2032. Woking BC has had an agreed Local Plan for some years but that has now proved inadequate, so the inspector added a further 150 or so houses per year to WBC’s Local Plan to cover Woking’s shortfall! So WBC’s annual requirement rose to 509 houses until 2032 (a total of 7,126 houses) 35% of which must be ‘Affordable’. Plus a further rise to 590 was deemed necessary by the inspector when we last looked.

WW. What about local democracy … hell, what about democracy full-stop?

Of these 7,126 houses, a minimum of 4,300, rising to perhaps 5,000, are planned for CRANLEIGH and DUNSFOLD PARK, with the balance spread around the rest of the Borough; We have to ask – just how democratic is that?

Improvements to our Local Roads and Rail?

Perhaps we could have a new road to rescue us from the A281 blight? Unfortunately not! There will, however, be a new roundabout at Shalford, just 100 or so metres from the existing roundabout, which feels as if it will bring the traffic to a complete standstill; and the Elmbridge Road and Bramley crossroads junctions will be reconfigured, so that’s a relief!!! There will also be a new canal bridge at Elmbridge but no new bridge over the old Railway.

What of the Railway?

No plans whatsoever have been considered since SCC’s last feasibility study found not enough demand and that it wasn’t affordable.


WW: There is a plan for 1,800 or so houses plus workspace, shops, a school, a medical centre, etc, which is languishing on the Secretary of State’s desk, awaiting Government approval or – as POW & the Rt Hon Mistress Milton sincerely hope and pray (after all, they’ve both lobbied hard enough!) dismissal. Oh, and in the future, if the Secretary of State doesn’t doff his cap and genuflect to POW and Mistress Milton there’s the prospect of an increase to 2,600 houses!

However, it seems that the developers have convinced the powers that be at Waverley that the development of Dunsfold would be jeopardised by the imposition of CIL on the whole development, so there will be NO CIL on the entire development – thereby saving the developers up to £100 MILLION over the life of the development – so that’s ok then.

So let’s hope the plan goes ahead fully and that our Planners use all their discretion to put right the wrongs – spreading the housing out more fairly – hunting for better sites…… they can – but will they?

WW. Says:

In the interest of accuracy – the WW does not want the Flying Scot coming after us with his sgian dubh (that’s dagger to us Sassenachs!), it is prudent of us to point out that under Dunsfold Park’s 106 contributions it will provide in excess of £50 MILLION towards highway improvements, school provision and improved leisure facilities in Cranleigh and other infrastructure improvements including a bus service – the first of its kind in the country, in perpetuity! Not to mention the obvious, affordable housing within the development.

Alfold Parish Council – which has opposed development – opposed pretty much everything – that has been proposed at Dunsfold Park also has the bare-faced cheek to be seeking £10 MILLION from the Dunsfold developers for infrastructure improvements. You couldn’t make it up, really, you couldn’t. No doubt the rest of the anti-Dunsfold Parish Councils will be lining up to follow suit but they’d best get their skates on as it’s now less than a month to go before the Secretary of State is due to deliver his decision on 31 March. The only question left is will he or won’t he bend to Mistress Milton and POW’s will? If he does both he and the Government’s housing policy will be a laughing-stock … but, never mind, Mistress Milton and POW will have had the last laugh and we’ll all know what we’ve long suspected: that he who pays the piper calls the tune!

And.. dare we mentioned it?


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



Screen Shot 2018-02-27 at 10.03.09.pngwaverleyairquality

Waverley Borough Council referred itself to the police over erroneous air quality data two weeks ago so this will be the second criminal investigation to be undertaken in the country into the publication of erroneous air quality data by a local council.


Waverley Borough Council referred itself to Surrey Police over its annual status report for 2016, which was withdrawn in October.
The news comes five months after Cheshire Police launched an investigation to probe Cheshire East Council’s flawed nitrogen dioxide (NO2) data.

Last August, Cheshire East Council reviewed hundreds of planning decisions to ensure that none had been impacted by the incorrect data and it likely that Waverley Council will have to do the same. More taxpayer’s money down the drain?

The issue prompted a legal challenge, subsequently dismissed at the High Court, from a developer to the Cheshire Council’s local plan, which was adopted in July.

Waverley’s referral became public on 19 February. Surrey Police has confirmed that it has made no arrests so far and is establishing if any criminal offences have taken place.
Waverley Council says it will make no further comment while the inquiry progresses.

The Leader of the council has announced that it has now signed contracts with developer Crest Nicholson to begin the controversial East Street development in Farnham – the town that is the subject of the police investigation. Trees have now been cut down along the A31 in readiness for a construction bridge, to access the site and traffic queues have stretched as far as the eye can see – causing yes, you guessed – more air pollution!

Leading Tory says Farnham appeals will be rejected? But a big question mark hangs over whether or not POW will seek a judicial review!


Confidence voiced that appeals will be rejected

WAVERLEY’S new portfolio holder for planning has expressed confidence Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan will “kill” five upcoming appeals for more than 500 homes in the town area, despite councillors agreeing Waverley’s new higher housing target this week.

Christopher Storey, the Tory councillor for Weybourne and Badshot Lea, took over the reigns as Waverley’s executive member for planning from Brian Adams this month and has been immediately thrown in the deep end – presiding over key landmarks in the development of the borough’s Local Plan and Farnham’s Brightwells redevelopment.

Last week Waverley invited members of the press to a briefing on the Local Plan, just weeks after a government planning inspector declared Waverley’s planning blueprint “sound” subject to a series of major modifications including raising the borough’s housing target to 590 homes per year.

This includes an additional allocation of 450 homes in Farnham, on top of the 2,330 already proposed over the plan period up to 2032, forcing an early review of Farnham’s own Neighbourhood Plan, adopted just last July, to find new housing sites.

Responding, architect of the town plan, town council leader Carole Cockburn told the Farnham Herald the inspector’s decision represented a “cruel blow” to the community-led planning document and the 10,000-plus people who voted for the plan in a referendum last April. 

However, Mr Storey took a different stance to Mrs Cockburn, echoing inspector Jonathan Bore’s comments that: These changes [to the Local Plan] will not diminish the importance or relevance of the work carried out to produce the Neighbourhood Plan, which will remain part of the statutory development plan.”

Addressing specifically five pending appeals for more than 500 homes spread across sites in Waverley Lane, Monkton Lane, Lower Weybourne Lane, Folly Hill and behind Farnham Park Hotel in Hale Road, Mr Storey added: “I am very confident that the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan will kill all five of those.”

His comments came just a day before 11th-hour protests failed to force a rethink last Tuesday, and the new higher housing target of building 590 homes a year in 14 years was agreed by Waverley Borough Council.

Following a special executive meeting at 5pm, 41 members of the full council meeting at 7pm voted in favour of the inspector’s changes to part one of Waverley’s local plan in order to speed up its adoption and “take back control” from speculative property developers.

Farnham Residents opposition leader Jerry Hyman was a lone objector, again arguing there was insufficient evidence for the mitigation measures proposed to protect the borough’s Special Protection Areas, while councillors Andy MacLeod (Farnham Residents), Kevin Deanus (Alfold, Tory) and Paul Follows (Godalming, Lib Dem) abstained.

Responding to a last-minute challenge by Protect Our Waverley (POW) campaign that last wek’s  decision was unlawful, because the council had potentially breached its constitution by holding the local plan meetings too close together, Waverley leader Julia Potts (Upper Hale, Tory) said it would be “very disappointing” if POW pursued its challenge.

“Waverley can proceed provided it is aware of the risk of challenge,” she said.

POW had previously called on all borough councillors to defer a decision on whether to approve the modified local plan, until the appeal decision on whether 1,800 houses can be built at Dunsfold Park – which has been allocated 2,600 new homes in the local plan. The verdict is due by March 31.

Taken from the Farnham Herald.

However, nobody dares to mention what if… The Dunsfold Aerodrome application is refused by the Secretary of State!

Result: One great big black hole in the Local Plan and one great big green hole in the borough of Waverley?



What a difference a plan makes?


Butter our butts and call us a scone – as they say in the West Country – but ‘Your Waverley’ is changing the habit of a lifetime and has begun turning down housing development in the countryside!

Ewhurst is the first village to benefit from having a ‘sound and approved Local Plan’ and so thick were the praises being heaped on planning officers for achieving this miracle that you could double up on a huge dollop of  West Country clotted cream! 

The borough of Waverley has not had the protection of a Local Development Plan since 2002! And, until recently has consistently objected to two of the largest brownfield sites in the borough being developed! Dunsfold Aerodrome and Hewitts Industrial Estate in Cranleigh!

‘Such a wonderful report,’ ‘the officers are marvellous,’ ‘they have worked soooooo hard.’  Pass the sick bowl – Alice! All because planning officers have done a complete volte-face just months after recommending approval of a development at Firethorn Farm, Ewhurst of 58 dwellings on a field under WA/2017/0369,  behind Larkfields in Horsham Lane, Ewhurst, and on the same day it recommended approval again, in a 79 PAGE REPORT FOR A REDUCED NUMBER OF 49 DWELLINGS BECAUSE – its benefits would outweigh the harm. Then on the night it then recommending refusal, in a one-page report, because its harm would outweigh the benefits!



Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 09.29.03.pngNOW YOU DONT ON A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT FEBRUARY 2018

Screen Shot 2018-03-02 at 09.26.39.png

But Ewhurst residents may not be able to hold their breath for too long. The applicant landowner Mr Peter Nutting has also registered a planning appeal.

Councillor Stephen Mulliner, a member of the JPC, suggested the applicant should be talking to the Parish Council which is in the process of producing its own Neighbourhood Plan. “I don’t rule this site out forever, the applicant should be seeking discussions with the parish council for its inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Former Portfolio Holder for Planning Councillor Brian Adams said: ‘This site has never been compared with other sites in the area. He now believed, ‘as the site was, now on the radar, it could come before us again in the Local Plan Part 11 in 12 months time!’ 

Screen Shot 2018-03-01 at 19.31.46.png



Frost bites​ Cranleigh!





What Cranleigh people would like to know Councillor Pat Frost (Conservative Farnham Wrecclesham & Rowledge) is exactly which applications did you turn down?  And exactly which applications are you referring to where an Inspector agreed with you? 

Perhaps we should respectfully remind you that the Joint Planning Committee of which you are a member has repeatedly ignored the views of Cranleigh people for years! It has consistently approved schemes in the countryside when local people wanted brownfield sites developed first – these include:

  • Crest Nicholson – 119 homes in Horsham Rd followed by another 149 – for which outline has been granted and despite no detailed approval, WORK HAS ALREADY STARTED!
  • West Cranleigh Nurseries, Alfold Rd. 265 – GRANTED.
  • Little Meadow, Alfold Road. 75 GRANTED – now coming back for 89! 
  • Amlets Park, Amlets Lane. 149 GRANTED.
  • Swallowhurst, Ewhurst Road, Cranleigh. 55 GRANTED
  • Berkeley Homes, Knowle Lane/Alfold Road 425. Refused by Waverley – GRANTED at Appeal.
  • Thakeham Homes, Elmbridge Road. 55 dwellings on a flood plain! GRANTED.
  • Hewitts Industrial Estate 120 Homes on a brownfield site Refused by WBC – GRANTED at appeal!
  • Cranleigh Hotel – 2 homes. GRANTED
  • Penwerris Horsham Road, Refused by Waverley and then included in Part 11 of its  Local Plan – application to be submitted shortly.
  • Garden grabbing – too numerous to mention!

WE COULD GO ON!  SO COUNCILLOR FROST, WHICH DEVELOPMENTS HAVE YOU ACTUALLY DEFENDED SO SUCCESSFULLY? Please let us know by contacting us here: If not then we take it that you agree that you talk a load of tosh and the people of Waverley, particularly those here in Farnham need to know that.


Be warned, errant councillors. Today​ Hadleigh tomorrow Waverley?


Oops! We almost forgot…

It’s already happened here in Waverley!

One member of ‘Your Waverley’ had his collar felt a while back before being elected to serve the people of Farnham.  Council Leader ‘Bobby’ Knowles’ friends in the force sought an ‘interview’ to put the frighteners on. So a knock on the door from the boys in blue is nothing new!

So watch out Councillor Paul Follows, Godalming’s new Lib Dem  – just read the article below! Just in case you start making a nuisance of yourself! Oops – you already have!Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 17.02.08.png

Of course, it helps if you are in the Police Federation, like ‘Your Waverley’s’ former leader Robert Knowless.  According to some of our friendly Waverley plods it’s easier to pull in the odd favour when you are one of THEM!  So the present Leader Julia Potts may not be quite so lucky?

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 16.49.31.png

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 16.49.53.pngScreen Shot 2018-02-06 at 16.50.23.png

Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 16.51.51.png


Oh dear! Did Surrey County Council Highways take us too literally?


There we were doing our public-spirited bit to save Godawfulming’s poor unsuspecting souls from falling down pavement potholes!

Then along comes a highway wally to fill in the offending potholes and then makes his way to Cranleigh to fill in its potholed streets – along with the roadside drains! 

However, we are aware that when God was handing out BRAINS some of those a little hard of hearing stood in the line that said –  DRAINS!

Here’s our earlier post.

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


Screen Shot 2018-02-21 at 08.46.29.png

Cranleigh electrician Ron Jimmison, who along with many others, have been complaining about the new town’s potholed streets, spotted this drain covered in tarmac after the highway wallys had made a visit! 


A Touch of Frost nips the ankles of Godalming’s new boy!


A little outburst about the adoption of ‘Your Waverley’s Local Plan by Councillor Paul Follows brought a moment of theatre to The Towers when a council veteran waded in to rebuke the new boy on the block after he received a round of applause!


Never one to be outdone – The Frosty one, poked Councillor Paul in the eyes, with her increasingly blunt stick – in the hope that the voting fodder would actually believe that the past Local Plan failures, were of course, not the fault of Tory Tossers, but the Liberal Democrats!

touchoffrostIs that chattering the sound of icicles forming on the Frosty one’s lips that we hear? Is she fearful of losing yet another of her Farnham seats? Pat Frost lost her county council seat to her Farnham Residents rival, Councillor Andy McLeod last year.

We say bring those 2019 elections on!




As we all here at the Waverley Web watched the webcast last night there was a certain MADNESS in the air followed up by a Press Release from POW – the Protect Dunsfold Aerodrome group – purporting to be standing up for the whole borough! Hence the reason why we all – burst into song!

Screen Shot 2018-02-23 at 16.55.33.png

Screen Shot 2018-02-23 at 16.55.47.png

What a night? What a week!

Protect our Waverley – rather like Donald Trump – seems to be in a tail-spin at the moment. Across the pond, The Donald is proposing to arm teachers and here in good old Waverley Bob Lees and his cronies – all 35 of them according to our headcount in the Public Gallery! – are accusing Waverley’s Executive and Full Council of acting unlawfully

‘with a gun against its head’!

Protect our little corner had the bare-faced cheek to accuse the Leader – Oh-not-so-Potty-One now – of taking their comments ‘very seriously’.  Seriously? They flatter themselves! No one takes that bunch of nincompoops seriously, least of all La Potts who, like Joan of Arc, has swept all before her and led her Council from abject and repeated failure (under her predecessors Robert Knowless and Richard Shut-the-Gates ) to triumph. It has taken La Potts less than two years to knock the Council into shape and deliver the much needed Local Plan which her predecessors had failed to deliver in over 10 years! Just goes to show what happens when you put a woman in charge – you get results and in double quick time! You go, girl!

Their brush strokes getting ever broader, ‘Protect our little corner of the Borough’ accused the Council of an ‘attitude of bravado’ and spoke of the ‘surreal experience’ of Councillors expressing serious concerns about the new Local Plan, yet then voting in favour of it’! Seriously? We all know that the Councillors – with one or two notable exceptions – all speak with forked tongues. They twitter on about the lack of merit in this planning application and that planning application and then, like the good little Tory sheep they are, they all fall into line and do as they’re told when it comes to entering the voting lobby.

‘Turkeys voting for Christmas’ according to Protect our Little Corner … Maybe that explains the poultry crisis, with no fowl to be had since KFC’s decision to switch delivery companies from Bidvest Logistics to DHL. Now we know it’s nothing to do with DHL, all the turkeys buggered off to vote at the Burys!

Here at the Waverley Web, we don’t often give advice! But on this occasion, our advice to PoW is: Give it a rest for all our sakes.’

Instead, why not start taking the anti-depressants – apparently they work – and Oxford University (not Trinity College Cambridge, owners of Dunsfold Park, we hasten to add) is recommending they be prescribed to up to a million more people. And, in the meantime, keep drinking the Red – because it fends off irritation (OK, maybe they are talking about teeth and gums but, who knows, it might just help the very sore losers get over their bitter disappointment!

Now, everyone! Down to Bet Fred, who will be laying odds on whether POW has gone really, really, mad, and having passed around the begging bowl…again…decide to issue a legal challenge – so that even more green fields across the borough can be developed!

The PoW Press release is a bit mad too- you can read it here:


Is the Cranleigh Society shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?


Here’s the latest message from Cranleigh’s ‘former rather weary watchdog’ that suddenly appears to have a new lease of life. But, as Cranleigh sits on the cusp of becoming Waverley’s fourth town, is it now too late to save its rural character?

Screen Shot 2018-02-21 at 19.34.10.png

The Committee of Cranleigh Civic Society announced this week that it has been strengthened and energised to fight the growing avalanche of proposed housing.

In the wake of the adoption of ‘Your Waverley’s’ Local Plan, far be it for us at the Waverley Web to want to pee on anyone’s fireworks, but isn’t it all over bar a lot of shouting? 41 councillors voted for – one was against – and three councillors abstained! All Cranleigh members voted for the plan, which will undoubtedly lead to yet more housing in Cranleigh. But then, why wouldn’t they?

Most of them were taking part in secret meetings with developers and planning officers long before the ink was even dry on the Daft Local Plan to determine just where thousands of new homes on the countryside would go!  And, as one Cranleigh councillor, the late Brian Ellis, stated at the time – Cranleigh shops need more footfall!’  Now those same councillors actually believe an adopted local plan will minimise the harm! Do they? Do they really? Whilst most of them were busy opposing development at Dunsfold Aerodrome, believing Cranleigh should become a New Town, they were also busy meeting with developers, even in their own homes, planning Cranleigh’s demise. They should be careful what they wish for – soon they may get the worst of both worlds! 

The new man heading the CCS, Terry Stewart, was Chair, then President, of Dorset CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) for eight years. Whilst there he was faced with the threat of housing developments throughout the Poole and Bournemouth Green Belt so lead a team of six villages and communities to defeat the proposals. This included MPs speaking to a demonstration outside Parliament and a procession to Downing Street to present a petition to the Prime Minister (see photo). The proposals were defeated – as were plans for a new village at Lytchett Minster. (See photos below).

Westminster Palace
Westminster Palace
Downing Street
Downing Street

It says experience shows that attacks on the Green Belt and unprotected beautiful countryside can only be defeated if there is a strong, professional team leading an active, widespread community with clear objectives. So the new Civic Society Team includes a retired Solicitor, two experts on building and infrastructure, an insurance expert and environmental and wildlife specialists – meeting on a fortnightly basis or more often if needed.

The society understand that villagers may believe that, whatever they feel, the Council and Government will do whatever they want to do, but the successes referred to above demonstrate that these battles CAN be won! Apathy only plays into their hands – do you really want this to happen?

It claims, ‘CRANLEIGH IS UNDER AN INCREASING THREAT FROM DEVELOPERS – changing your quality of life and the Cranleigh we know and love.’ Since 2014, Waverley Borough Council has approved the building of over 1,300 houses in Cranleigh. Think for a moment the huge impact this will have on the A281, our B-roads and country lanes, our already overloaded and inadequate sewage treatment works and the crumbling infrastructure – and the increased flooding risk. Also, please remember that we are the only main settlement in Waverley without a railway station.

Despite all this, more and more new planning applications are regularly being received.

Just a few days ago we heard that Dunsfold Park is virtually assured of being given approval for 2,600 new houses – and that is just the beginning! Just think of all those extra cars entering and using the A281.

We have heard credible accounts of a developer acquiring “options to buy” large tracts of land down Knowle Lane – is the idea for Cranleigh and Dunsfold to merge? Are we to become another Crawley?

Or does the Waverley Web dare to suggest … Crandun-for!

Cranleigh Civic Society needs YOUR support so please visit our website – www.cranleighsociety.orgFacebook and Twitter links and join our membership. We are working hard on YOUR behalf to protect our very special village, its environment, and wildlife.

The Waverley Web puts up the WANTED sign and guess what? Up pops a Povey on the BBC!


There we were thinking that  Cranleigh & Ewhurst’s Surrey County Councillor Andrew Povey had gone missing so we put out the WANTED poster on the link below.

Have you seen this man?

No sooner said than done. What do they say about … hell having no fury like a BLOKE… scorned! 

Now, with his feet now firmly gazunder County Hall’s tables, than..Screen Shot 2018-02-19 at 22.15.42.png !

as Councillor Andrew Povey – attempts to scratch the eyeballs out of the bloke who snatched the Leader’s mantle from him after the 2011 coup when the Deputy Dog. Bodge and his fellow Tory Tossers took a Vote of No Confidence in him and forced him to resign!

Following his resignation, his immortal words still ring in our ears! He said:

“I came to a crossroads in my life.”

It wasn’t a crossroads you arrived at Councillor ~Povey – it was the end of the road, for one of the most ambitious, unscrupulous, double-dealing, opportunist politicians, it has been our misfortune to come across! And, because Guildford Conservative Association scraped the bottom of the barrel and persuaded the voting fodder of Cranleigh & Ewhurst to put you right back where they believed you belonged, claiming  you were a better bet than your running mate Alan Young, you can now continue your long-held ambition to…

bbc-surrey-logoDislodge the Bodge!

Watch out Hodge there’s a Weasel breathing down your neck aiming to dislodge you!  Povey has been biding his time for almost 10 years to poke you one in the eye for booting him out of his hot seat.

Who says .. what goes around…! Who needs an opposition when you have a Povey in your midst?
Listen to the interview here – starting 2hours 7 mins in.

Screen Shot 2018-02-19 at 22.16.29

Screen Shot 2018-02-19 at 21.42.14

Councillor Andrew Povey:

The former leader of Surrey County Council (SCC) criticised the current leader David Hodge, over financial difficulties SCC now face as a result of a  £100 million funding crisis, council tax set to increase by 6%, cuts of £66 million and the council forced to dip into its reserves. Dr  Povey, who led SCC until 2011 said: “They [SCC] had a report from CIPFA, a professional institute for accountants, … in September 2016, and at that time the leader was very much pushing the idea of a 15% [council tax rise] referendum in Surrey, which was really a complete non-starter and this report told him that in history no one has ever won a referendum like this… and that there was an absence of any credible cost reduction plan.
“So in September 2016 that’s when he [Hodge] should have started to make savings because those savings would then have been made in 2016, they would have continued through into ’17 and ’18 so we would now be in a much better position than we are…”

Cllr David Hodge – v- Povey.
Povey and Hodge fell out in 2011. Povey resigned following the resignation of Hodge, his deputy at the time, and Hodge took over as the leader.
At the time Povey said: “It is my intention to stand down as leader of Surrey County Council… so I can develop my business interests.” He also said “It got to the point where we were seeing things differently… we have a different style, are very different people – that can be a strength, but I think it got to the point where it was going the other way.”
Andrew Povey also stood down as a councillor but, after a four-year break, made a surprising comeback in last year’s county council election when, with the approval of Anne Milton MP, he stood as the Conservative candidate for the Cranleigh & Ewhurst division, following the controversial deselection of the incumbent, Alan Young. Since then the local Cranleigh/Ewhurst branch has been in complete disarray with Anne Milton’s new lady-in-waiting Screen Shot 2018-02-21 at 14.54.10.pngalso working tirelessly behind the scenes to unseat the present Chairman of  Cranleigh Parish Council – Mary Foryszewski, and to take her seat at Waverley in 2019!
Now, some observers are questioning whether Povey’s public criticism of his leader too, is the first sign of a new leadership bid.

What do they say about – “rats altogether in a sack.”

Cllr Hazel Watson
Cllr Hazel Watson, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said yesterday: “I am pleased that Cllr Povey agrees with what the Liberal Democrats and I have been saying about Surrey County Council’s finances over the last 18 months.
“He is right to draw attention to the criticisms of the county council contained within CIPFA’s report Financial Resilience Review – Surrey County Council. This report was commissioned by the current leader of the council and was kept hidden from county councillors for months.
“He is correct in his judgment of the folly of the leader in pursuing a doomed policy of a 15% council tax rise which was subsequently abandoned. The CIPFA report clearly stated that such a referendum was unwinnable but the leader of the council refused to act on their advice.
“Instead of blaming the government for lack of funding and backing an unwinnable referendum, the Conservative administration should have been working on identifying sensible efficiencies and a realistic level of deliverable savings without cutting services. It should also have acted much earlier on the many empty buildings it owns across the county, which have cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds each year to maintain.
“Surrey County Council is in a poor financial position with no clear plan to improve the situation. Unless a solution is found, then we only have to look to Northamptonshire County Council to see the consequences of when the money eventually runs out.”





After ranting on for years about Farnham’s Air Quality issues has someone, somewhere, finally listened to Jerry Hyman? 

After following the powerful Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee chaired by Farnham Resident councillor Jerry Hyman for some time it was only a question of time before he would force his, and the serious concerns of many others, including the Farnham Society, to be heard. 


Funny really when the webcasts of his meetings are either – not webcast at all  – or they don’t seem to work most/all/some of the time!!

Cover up or what…?  Accountability –  what accountability?

• Air Quality Officer Ann Marie Wade – GONE!
• Executive Director Paul – Wen-am-I-leaving – GONE!
• Deputy Director – Damien, The Omen,  Roberts – GONE!
• Council Leader during most of the period in question Robert Knowless … Has he gone… or is he just missing, most of the time?
• As for Julia – has she just put on her mask and gone to Potts?


Roger Steel, a former borough councillor and member of Waverley’s executive, has criticised Waverley’s handling of Farnham’s air quality problem on behalf of the town planning watchdog the Farnham Society.

He told the Farnham Herald: “At the moment, Waverley judges that NO2 levels contravene safe limits set by European Union Regulations at three places in Farnham – two in The Borough and one in Wrecclesham Road. But with the correction of the local bias factor, I fully expect at least six to seven places to be exceeding that limit.

“We are concerned that there may now be further delay in the issuing of the 2016 Air Quality Report and subsequent air quality data which is needed so that appropriate measures can be taken to reduce the health risks to residents and retailers, and also so that well-informed planning decisions can be taken.

“Large developments such as East Street – which will increase traffic in the town centre by around 15 percent – should be well and truly put on the back burner until we know the full extent of the problem.”

Mr Steel added, although the content of the audit report and scope of the police investigation is unknown, he believes Waverley faces a substantial “six-figure” fine should it be found guilty of any wrong-doing, adding “if it is the case that Waverley knew its figures were wrong when submitting them to Defra, it could be very, very serious indeed”.

He continued: “The Environment Act 1995 makes clear that local authorities are obliged to monitor local air quality and submit their findings to Defra – and can be penalised if they break this law.

I’ve been writing to Waverley for years saying they are breaking this law, and the council’s leadership has got to take overall responsibility.”

WILL THEY WON’T THEY… NO! Because there is no accountability at Waverley Borough Council.


But the council is yet to release the audit report in the public domain or reissue its withdrawn 2016 air quality report – leaving a huge question mark as to whether Farnham has a pollution problem or not, at a time when planning appeals for more than 500 homes in the town area are to be determined in coming weeks.

Confirming the news, a police spokesman said: “Surrey Police is investigating following concerns reported to police over an official council environmental report. No arrests have been made and an investigation is ongoing to establish whether any criminal offences have taken place.”

A Waverley spokesman added: “The final version of the audit report has been received. The report has been passed onto the police, who are now investigating. We can’t say anymore until their investigation is completed.”

It comes after Waverley commissioned an independent review of its 2016 Air Quality Annual Status Report last August following complaints by the Farnham Society and Farnham-based air quality expert David Harvey that council officers had got their figures wrong.

This error was confirmed by red-faced council chiefs a month later – calling into question the validity of previous annual air quality reports that have used the same basis of calculation, and prompting a comprehensive audit of Waverley’s air quality monitoring and reporting arrangements.

Waverley is duty-bound to submit an annual air quality status report to DEFRA after an Air Quality Management Area was declared in Farnham in 2004, following the discovery of excessive levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) which has been linked to as many as 40,000 premature deaths every year in the UK.

The council’s latest Air Quality Annual Status Report, published last May, claimed air pollution – and specifically levels of NO2 only “slightly exceeds” the national objective at three monitoring stations in Farnham; two in The Borough and one in Wrecclesham Road.

However, this was challenged by Mr Harvey, the director of West Street firm ADM Ltd, who believes Waverley has dramatically under-estimated the problem after miscalculating two ‘bias adjustment factors’ used to counter discrepancies between the council’s monitoring equipment.

Waverley’s situation bears painful similarities with that faced by another unitary authority, Cheshire East Council, which admitted ‘falsifying’ its own air quality figures last year, requiring hundreds of planning applications to be reviewed and prompting an ongoing police investigation.

Responding to the criminal investigation into Waverley’s own botched report this week, Mr Harvey told the Herald: “I am baffled as to why what seemed to be a case of discourteous incompetence has been referred to the police to investigate.

“There does seem to be similarities with the between what is going on at Waverley and East Cheshire where the police were called in to investigate what appears to have been ‘deliberate and systematic manipulation of data’ and perhaps is pointing to a wider problem with how local authorities are undertaking their statutory duties to review and assess air quality.

“I have no idea what the police have actually been asked to investigate and cannot understand how it could have come to this.

“I have been in contact with Waverley since first drawing attention to the problem in May last year and have been impressed by how pro-active they have been since understanding that there was a problem with the data.

“I hope that they will now release the corrected and update 2016 monitoring report so that we can understand whether this is actually an air quality problem in Farnham.”

Tell us what you want, what you really really want Cranleigh?


Frank talking on behalf of the people of Cranleigh as more bulldozers head towards Waverley’s NEW TOWN.

As if these developers give a tuppeny duck what the residents of Cranleigh want –  what they really, really want!

Because from what we hear over here in Farnham, Cranleigh people really, want is some peace and respite from HGV’s thundering through their once peaceful village, and the unrelenting onward march of developers through their streets. Who are they providing homes for? The locals? No homes to satisfy the housing needs of the Woking Wimbledon and Wandsworth Wanderers!

As for the low-cost homes, for village people?

We here at the WW are totally discombobulated!

Low cost for whom exactly? No doubt the very same Cranleigh people that moved into Sirus Place in Parsonage Road, most of whom are from outside the new town! Pull the other one – it’s got cement on it! Three four and five-bed low-cost homes!

And… where did the village benefactor Lettuce and his friend Leafy (aka Vrijland and Leahy) Go? Well you know where don’t you Cranleigh residents? Laughing all the way to the nearest bank! Well, that is if there’s one open?

We notice that now the West Cranleigh Nurseries 265-home development in Elmbridge/Alfold Road has been re-named – Knowle Park. No doubt that sounds slightly more grand than mentioning that it is adjacent to a Poo Factory and to floodplains? No doubt those flooded plains will be a little further away now Lettuce and Leafy have illegally dredged the Cranleigh Waters, affected flooding further downstream, and got clean away with it?

No surprise there then for the Tory Party donors!




Sorry, Ms. Faithfull. The days you and Mr. Swinnerton cherished have long gone.


Farnham’s not a pretty sight these days!​


Here are just a few of the fifteen, and counting,  empty or closing, retail outlets in Farnham.

But worry not!- Soon there will be lots of new ones to take their place and all funded by the county and borough councils. Happy days! Because quite soon we will ALL be paying more council tax! And, there are suggestions that Waverley’s ‘high worth individuals could pay even more.’















27539994_10157099379761632_1125427590713679859_n.jpgScreen Shot 2018-02-11 at 22.27.14.png

Tom, Tom – is the fight on…to reduce our council tax?


Screen Shot 2018-02-17 at 15.48.44.png

Read the full Daily Mail Article by clicking below to read how East Hampshire District Council intends to abolish council tax altogether over the next few years! Wow!


Published on another date we’d have thought this was an April Fool’s Joke …

Waverley residents can but hope that the new boy on the block, who has migrated from East Hants, will be bringing with him some of the revolutionary ideas they’ve employed there which has enabled them to freeze Council Tax for the past seven years and even aspire to – whisper it who dares! – eradicate it within a few years!

It’s not often we, at Waverley Web quote the infamous Bob Lees of POW, but in his immortal words, ‘The Residents of Waverley deserve better’! And if the councillors and officers at the Burys read this and take a leaf or twenty out of Ferris Cowper’s book, under the guidance of our new Chief Executive, Tom Horwood – who has clearly learned at the knees of a master – it could actually do better … much, much, much better!  Look, listen and learn Leaders, Julie Potts and David Hodge!!!

Yes Hodge the Bodge – Oh, Ye of the 20 county council tax increases over 21 years,  who said recently after announcing a 6% council tax increase and another 19m cut to its social care budget…

“SCC is not having a financial crisis, we are just facing more challenges.”

No pressure there then, Tom. The bar has been set by your former boss at East Hants District Council, and we, the residents of Waverley, expect you to live up to our expectations!

So, what are you waiting for? Get to it! And, ask your county council colleagues to take a leaf out of East Hants book too, instead of laughing and ridiculing them!

No wonder you left Tom.  It pays its present Chief Executive less than an ordinary MP, £60,000, and she actually earns £120,000 for running two councils!

Hee at the Waverley Web we are told you have already impressed the locals by ‘listening’ and ‘hearing’ what they say. Even taking their complaints seriously – so impress us some more? 

There are 14 people other than Joanna Killian The new Chief Executive of Surrey County Council,  earning more than £100,000.  She herself is in the first class carriage of the municipal gravy train on a salary of £220,000 plus expenses, which we expect are considerable!

We rest our case.

Who says nobody listens to the Waverley Webbers.


Just a day or two ago we wrote this!

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 16.21.28.pngCome to Surrey and visit the UK’s capital of potholes – on and off-road!

Screen Shot 2018-02-16 at 12.05.11.png

We now understand that Surrey County Council has decided to introduce a new leisure activity under its community Health & Wellbeing Programme.  It intends to keep us all fit and well and remain independent in our own homes, stay out of council-funded nursing homes, and not become a burden on the State of Surrey!
It is called Scuba Pot Hole Diving!

Is someone going to ask the Pope if they​ should be allowed to build at Dunsfold?




We’ve all heard the old adage ‘he thinks all his Christmases have come at once’! If the Secretary of State doesn’t pull his finger out of the proverbial, that could be the verdict for the Flying Scotsman – always assuming, that is, Sajid Javid makes a positive decision when he finally gets around to making it!

Here at the Waverley Web we wonder –  is there anyone who hasn’t commented?

Our moles – both within Waverley Borough Council and PoW (and, no, the PoW mole doesn’t know s/he’s a mole, s/he’s just too trusting of his / her intimates!) – that the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government has written, this week, to ‘Your Waverley’  – copies to every Tom, Dick & Harriet who have expressed a passing interest in the decision – except of course, His Holiness.

 Saying: “The Secretary of State is considering the report of the Inspector, Philip Major who held a public local inquiry from 18 July 2017 into the [Dunsfold Park] planning application … [and he] takes the view that the recently published Report on the Examination of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1 and the associated Final Schedule of Main Modifications include new information which may be material to the application before him.” The upshot being that “The Secretary of State considers that a period of two weeks to submit representations is reasonable in the circumstances of this case” and arising from that he “considers that he will not be in a position to reach a decision on the application by 15 March, as previously notified … he will now issue his decision on or before 31 March 2018.”

How long does it take one man and his army to make a decision that’s as plain as the nose on his face?! It’s like pulling teeth trying to get a decision out of the Ministry of Housing! No wonder there’s a chronic shortage of housing in this country if they keep putting off making a decision.

 In other democratic countries, the application would have been issued in half the time and  1,800 houses would have been built and occupied! But here in the UK, where every mouse, bat, and bullfrog has to be consulted –  – it’s  taken 10 years and counting … so what’s another three months here and two weeks there …?

We’ve heard that PoW is having a pow-wow as we type, taking “the opportunity to submit further written representations ”because it “affects the case [they] put to the Inspector at the inquiry.”

We can just see it now, winging its way over the ether:

Dear Mr. Jewell

Inspector Jonathan Bore has surprised no-one – least of all us! – by the conclusions reached in his report on the Waverley Local Plan Part 1; he has not wavered (no pun intended!) from the position he took during the Public Examination last summer when he unjustifiably ‘talked up’ the housing need target to the unsustainable level of 590 dwellings per year. Waverley Borough Council, to their detriment and shame, did not challenge that at the time or subsequently, and the result is a Plan which blights every part of the Borough but especially our corner of it.

Once again, local opinion has been ridden roughshod over and ignored. Neighbourhood Plans seem to count for nothing and the most unsustainable site for development, Dunsfold Aerodrome, has been elevated to almost ‘holy grail’ status by Mr. Bore. The report, which in its own words correctly states that it is strategic, has none the less placed a disproportionate reliance on this single, remote site for delivery of the unsustainable quantity of homes to be built in the Borough over the Plan period.

Mr. Bore talks at length about his own assessment of the environmental and transport credentials of Dunsfold Aerodrome, without the benefit of the full evidence properly being considered in the separate Call In Inquiry, the conclusion of which was not expected to be announced by the Secretary of State until 15th March. At the same time, Waverley Borough Council has proposed handling a ‘free gift’ worth between £10m and £16m to the owners of Dunsfold Aerodrome by exempting them from all-important Community Infrastructure Levy – money the whole borough desperately needs and would benefit from.

POW believes the residents of Waverley – and especially the residents of Awfold and Duncefold – deserve better!

Yours sincerely 

Bob Lies
Chairman of the Campaign

Protect our Waverley Campaign
… is a group formed to campaign against the development of Dunsfold Park New Town on the Dunsfold Airfield and other un-sustainable planning applications throughout the Borough of Waverley – not that we can be bothered to do or say anything about applications in the rest of the Borough because we only really, truly, madly, deeply care about Awfold, Duncefold, Ker-Chiddingfold and Where-Has-All-the-Traffic-Come-From… Horsham? But we’ve been told it’s not PC to let the people of Cranleigh, Godalming, and Farnham think we don’t give a Donald Duck about them!

Now, dear readers, once you’ve picked yourself up off the floor, where you’ve no doubt been rolling,  and wiped the tears from your eyes, we’ll break it to you gently … we didn’t make that letter up – well, OK, we might have used a touch of poetic licence describing POW and its supporters, but the rest is a reproduction its latest Press Release, written in a fit of pique when Inspector Bore’s Report was published.

Seriously, folks, we couldn’t have made that up if we’d tried. Yeah, we’re tongue in cheek and on a good day we can be funny but that was hysterical … all the more so because they actually believe their own PR! And… if they don’t get their own way they will…do what Violet Elizabeth Bob did and they will…

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


Or you could come to Godawfulming and break a leg on the pavements!

Today we are bemoaning the state of footpaths in  Godalming High Street.

There are numerous trip hazards to be had here – aside from the cobbles!

It comes as no surprise to any of us that we all need to watch our step in Waverley! But what exactly is our town council doing about the dangerous situation with which we are faced?  

We are told council tax hikes are on the horizon from all our local authorities.  The town,  parish, borough, and county councils – but don’t dare look ahead – just look down!

This picture below is just one of many hazards spotted today – 12th February – probably the worst so far. Hideously dangerous to pedestrians. You may even have seen us? animated-spider-man-image-0007
Hopefully, anyone on a night out celebrating  Valentines Day-to-day will look before they leap when they are out in the dark walking past The Lounge bar on the corner of High Street and Wharf Street.

It could be a disastrous evenings-end to a romantic meal out in one of Godalming’s eateries if you end up base over apex!

Perhaps Surrey County Councillor Peter Martin will – ‘take a trip’ down Godalming High Street and do something about it? More like Councillor Penny Rivers will!

Screen Shot 2018-02-13 at 09.53.10.png

longer shot footpath outside The Lounge.JPG

We know that Surrey has been named the worst county in the UK for road potholes – some are now so deep, particularly in Shere Road and Ewhurst, you could dig for coal!

The county has 6,712 “current hazards” and that has probably increased during the construction of this post! These are hazards not marked as “fixed” on its road – that is almost twice as many holes as in neighbouring Hampshire, in second place with only 3,395. This data has been compiled by a website called Fill That Hole, run by Cycling UK, which passes on the details to local authorities.

But what about the statistics for Surrey’s deteriorating pavements, like the one above in Godalming that could cause a serious accident, which, if suffered by the elderly, could result in death!


“Whatever happened to localism?” Well, Councillor Cockburn if the cap fits, wear it!


Councillor Carole Cockburn bleats on about the “cruel blow” a Government Inspector has dealt Farnham.


“I no more want to see additional housing allocated now to Cranleigh than I do to Farnham and I certainly wouldn’t want to pass on another 450 dwellings to existing settlements in the East of the borough.” ‘Etcetera, etcetera…

let’s all get a shovel and attempt to move the mountain of Screen Shot 2018-02-11 at 10.33.59.png

this woman generates.

Her hypocrisy is legendary.

Everyone in the east has been watching her and her Tory Tosser mates as they clamour to pile as much housing as they can muster over there, even on floodplains and adjacent to homes that have flooded for decades.

Her beef is all about, “timing’ and the fact that some very unpopular Farnham planning appeals in the pipeline are likely to be allowed! Shock horror, biter bit we say here at the Waverley Web!

Screen Shot 2018-02-09 at 19.05.50.png

Did she think that when she was masterminding her Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, which she believes is written in tablets of stone, the rest of the borough was asleep?

If so what about all those other Neighbourhood Plans that were written and then re-written, and then written again, all of which have proved useless!

What about the Cranleigh Civic Society’s efforts to speak up for the village of Cranleigh to prevent unsustainable development – now called Cranleigh New Town! The same village you rubbished as not having ‘very much architectural merit.’  What about the village of Ewhurst which you claimed “was hardly a quintessential English village” and contained a lot of “rubbish.” Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! It beggars belief how you now have the gall to chastise a Government Inspector and say`:

Screen Shot 2018-02-11 at 10.12.57.png



Could subscriptions be dropping off from Mistress Milton’s Tory donors?


Get that cane out Mistress Milton?

StTriniansanneScreen Shot 2018-02-06 at 11.10.20.png

A Conservative borough councillor is offering to provide a rent-free HQ based at her home in Worplesdon for the Guildford Conservative Association (GCA), which covers east Waverley.

Wow! can we see a gong coming on!!

 The Association includes the Waverley eastern villages branch of Cranleigh and Ewhurst where the internal flack has been flying for months and where wholesale resignations from members are expected!

The offer comes after GCA  considered moving from its HQ  in Loseley Park in Godalming which the association chairman Bob Hughes, states in a confidential memo is “relatively expensive”. 

Which in other words means, they can’t afford it anymore because donations are dropping off!

Cllr Iseult Roche (Con, Worplesdon) made the offer following the grant of planning permission in November 2017 for a: “conversion of a detached redundant lambing shed to habitable accommodation” at her home, despite  objections from local residents about the conversion within a conservation area, in green belt and in the setting of a listed building.

The application was referred to Guildford’s  Planning Committee because the applicant, a Mr. Costeloe, believed to be Cllr Roche’s husband, was related to a councillor. Her postal address has been withheld from the GBC website because it was judged: “disclosure… could lead to her being subject to violence or intimidation.”

It is believed that candidate selection for the Worplesdon ward is currently part of the overall candidate selection process within the area covered by the GCA, which includes parts of Waverley. A leaked internal memo, from its chairman, has identified four possible options for the future location of its offices:

1. Remain at Loseley, possibly seeking a smaller, cheaper unit.
2. Share offices with another neighbouring Conservative association.

Whoops! Does that mean Mistress Milton intends joining forces with SW Surrey MP Jeremy Shunt?
3. Purchase a property.
4. Pursue the offer from Cllr Roche “rent free”.

Bob Hughes admitted in his memo that the last option: “…has the obvious downside risk of us becoming beholden to one association member and any factors could change the relationship.”

Sharing an office was discounted because: “…this was not handled well by Woking“ … “sharing with Mole Valley would be difficult…”, “…The Surrey Heath offices at Windlesham are a long way…and the area may move to the Windsor constituency…”.

Oh! dear – didn’t even consider moving in with Shunt then?

Cllr Melanie Whitehand, chairman of the Woking Conservative Association, said recently  “There are no plans to establish a joint office, and if Guildford is claiming it’s due to Woking handling it badly, I refute that…”.

WW says: There you go then – like rats in a sack the whole bloody lot of them!

The leaked memo also revealed that Cllr Geoff Davis (Con, Holy Trinity), whose career has been in property surveying and development, had been trying to identify premises for the association to buy without revealing who the purchasers would be.

An office in the centre of the constituency is the preferred option of Guildford’s MP Anne Milton but, with what are believed to be low membership figures, the association does not have sufficient liquid assets at its disposal and would have to seek a loan.

“Here at the Waverley Web are all quite sure there will be someone in the Cranleigh/Ewhurst part of the constituency eager to house the offices! Why don’t they nip down to one of their Cranleigh donors – like the Lettuce/Concrete  King and his developer friend Andy Leafy aka Vrijland a Leahy?

The memo concludes that while purchasing a property was the favoured option it risked tying up all the association’s funds, leaving no reserves. It recommended leaving the property purchase option on hold and the offer from Iseult Roche be explored. Legal advice to the association was that an agreement could be drawn up giving GCA the right to occupy in return for a peppercorn rent.

When Bob Hughes, was asked by The Guildford Dragon NEWS about the leaked memo, he said:  “A confidential options paper was leaked – I don’t know who leaked it…

“We have a number of options, including continuing in our present offices. We are exploring how all options would work – all of them.”

The Guildford Conservative Association, which oversees the selection of parliamentary and council candidates,  reveal very little of its inner workings. Even officer appointments are unpublished on its website. Unless of course when they are unselecting sitting councillors such as Surrey County Councillor Alan Young, by the way, has anyone spotted him recently, or the county councillor who replaced him? Have you seen this man?

It’s called openness and transparency! 


Has this highly respected architect​ come up with a better town plan for Farnham?


Has Michael Blower, a former Waverley Mayor, borough Councillor, highly respected Farnham architect and a former partner of Guildford’s Scott, Brownrigg & Turner, devised a scheme that could bring about a volte-face to the presently proposed town redevelopment? 


26805223_10156035936391613_1347500226118123481_n.jpgScreen Shot 2018-01-12 at 22.27.26.png

Screen Shot 2018-01-12 at 22.29.15.pngScreen Shot 2018-01-12 at 22.29.31.png

Developers will soon be like bees around The Elstead​ Honeypot.


 Honeypot Antiques in Elstead closed down at the end of August last year. A sad day and the end of an era for the village. No more wandering through this wonderful Aladdin’s Cave of interesting artifacts.
The windows have been obscured for several months – but one of our eagle-eyed followers noticed the yellow peril in the window had recently appeared and it wasn’t nectar it was a planning application notice.

The target for making a decision on this particular scheme was quoted as 21st January but it doesn’t appear anything has happened as yet and we can’t see it on any planning agenda. 

 This latest plan has provoked six objections to date, though only  12 neighbours have been informed. 

Plans were approved March 2015 for the redevelopment of the site to include reconstruction of a retail unit with two flats over, one attached cottage and pair of cottages to the rear of the site, together with associated car parking and landscaping.
Now, this new application WA/2017/2196 is for:
Thee erection of a building comprising ground floor retail space and 2 flats above; attached dwelling and detached dwelling to rear together with associated works and parking following the demolition of the existing building

The History is interesting: Plans to redevelop the site go back to 2000 but according to a Heritage report attached to the latest planning application. It seems it has a chequered planning history. The link is at the bottom of the page.
Honeypot Antiques has been used as a shop since around 1923. At that time it was only the existing frontage building and in the 1950’s, flat roof rear and side extensions were added. It was a grocer until 1970, then a hardware store and since 1996 has traded as an antiques store.
Between 1999 and 2002 the garden, the garages belonging to the shop and the gas storage compound were demolished and included in a large development at the rear of the shop. This also included the land/gardens of 1-6 Avenue Row, the fish and chip shop, the delicatessen and the United Reform Church and demolition of the next door bakery, butchers and newsagent/tuck shop.
This development went on to become Orchard Close and two new shops on Milford Road, currently a pharmacy and beauty salon.

Whatever happens – it seems once the developers start to swarm, the Honeypot will be no more!

Honeypot Antiques shop.JPGHoneypot Antiques.JPG

Oh dear! Is Protect Our Little Corner of Waverley having a nervous breakdown?


With depressing predictability, Protect our Little Corner of Waverley has reacted with fury to Inspector Jonathan Bore’s conclusion that Dunsfold Aerodrome is Waverley’s best hope of meeting its housing need. It is his view that Dunsfold is a strategic site and will lessen the need to concrete over our green fields creating unnecessary and unwanted over-expansion of the borough’s three main towns, Cranleigh, Godalming and Farnham.

A disparaging Press Release issued on Tuesday makes a number of choice remarks from which we have cherry-picked the best to save those of you who are heartily sick of reading PoW’s self-centered, let’s protect the villages of Awfold, Duncfold, You-have-to-be-Kiddingfold, and Where-Has-all-the-traffic-combe-from and bugger Cranleigh, Godalawfulming, and the borough’s largest town of Farnham that has now become a brownfield site because ‘Your Waverley’ has thrown so much sh*t at it!

How Now Says POW?

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 12.15.17

Violet Elizabeth ‘Bob (Lees)  – I’ll scream and I’ll scream til I’m sick!

‘Inspector Jonathan Bore has surprised no-one …’

‘… he unjustifiably ‘talked up’ the housing need target to the unsustainable level of 590 dwellings per year.’

‘Once again, local opinion has been ridden roughshod over and ignored … and the most unsustainable site for development, Dunsfold Aerodrome, has been elevated to ‘holy grail’ status by Mr. Bore.’

‘POW believes the residents of Waverley deserve better.’

Oh no, they don’t! What they really believe is the residents of the aforementioned Awfold, Duncfold, You-have-to-be-Kiddingfold, and Where-Has-all-the-traffic-combe-from deserve better! They don’t give a damn about the rest of the borough as long as their own backyards are protected!

Never mind that Cranleigh already has 1,300 homes consented, more in the pipeline and that Farnham is already grid-locked!

Where was POw when Waverley Planners was handing out planning consents on greenfields like Smarties? Nowhere! That’s where. They were too busy handing round the begging bowl to build a war chest to fight the Dunsfold Developer and fill Mistress Milton and Jeremy Shunt’s coffers in order to ensure they did their dirty work in the corridors of power, thus ensuring the application was called in.

And… exactly what good has that done? None whatsoever, quite the reverse in fact. It led to Waverley Borough Council having to spend a shed-load of money it could ill afford to defend their position at Public Inquiry and Betty Boop (the woman formerly known as Liz the Biz) running around like a headless chicken, rubber stamping planning permissions faster than developers could print them off! So frit was BB that housing at Dunsfold was going to disappear, like Scotch Mist, that she granted consents to the Berkeley Bunnies and the Lettuce King to build over 800 houses in Cranleigh on land that everyone knows – floods!

Waverley Web believes the residents of Cranleigh deserve better, and so do our residents here in Farnham.

PS. For those of you who can stomach POW’s crocodile tears for the residents of Waverley, herewith a link to their latest Huffing and Puffing that even the Flying Scotsman couldn’t match!

View: POW Local Plan Press Release

Dumb and Dumber’s crowd just get dumber by the day!



As our local authorities run like lemmings towards the fiasco that is ‘Blightwells’ retail giants in the county are bleeding to death! 


Bunnings, the new owners of Homebase Stores, has announced a £1billion write-down with money flowing down British drains, and warns ‘this cannot continue!’


Meanwhile, cash-strapped Waverley and Surrey County Councils invest £30/50m of our money and our land in the Blightwells, East Street retail development in Farnham!


Surrey –  Britain’s richest county faces a £100 million cash crisis … and the county council and borough councils are proposing a huge hike in our council tax bills!

The owner of Homebase Stores – has characterised the financial situation of the British arm of its business, which it bought just over a year ago as, “terrible’ but warns it will not allow the situation to drag on! And says:

“its fate must be decided quickly!”

Perhaps  Waverley and Surrey County Councils should do the same, by examining where they are going wrong, instead of just blaming the Government?

“The underlying loss, before interest and tax is £97m”

Said Bunnings Boss – Rob Scott – “I appreciate that what we have disclosed today is terrible news, terrible,  terrible for our shareholders, and we feel the pain of that as shareholders as well, but what is most important is what we do from today onwards to address the issue.

“We are not going to let this roll on for years.” He said there would be a complete review of the Bunnings British Arm, (formerly Homebase) and although closure of the stores – which includes those pictured below in and around Surrey and Waverley, would be ‘incredibly costly,’ as it was sitting on lease liabilities of at least £1bn, but admitted, ‘complete closure of the business could not be ruled out.’

The company bought  the Homebase DIY stores in 2016

Screen Shot 2018-02-07 at 12.56.35.png

Surrey’s woes will alarm Downing Street as it is a solidly Conservative council and the county is represented at Westminster by seven senior government ministers.

SCC has one of the worst financial outlooks of any area of the country, research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reveals. Council documents warn of a £105 million funding gap — the difference between the funding it expects to receive in the next financial year and the money it needs to spend. It is the largest deficit reported by any of the 150 English local authorities whose finances have been analysed by the bureau. The average is £14.7 million. When calculated as a percentage of its budget for the coming financial year, Surrey’s funding gap is 12.8 percent, the ninth highest in the country. The average is 6.9 percent.

The council, whose core government grant has been reduced by more than £200 million since 2010, is exhibiting several other signs of financial stress.  Its usable reserves will have more than halved between 2013 and 2019, falling from £170.3 million to £63.2 million — far lower than its funding gap. On Tuesday night the council approved a new three-year budget, including the use of a further £23.6 million from its reserves despite being warned last year by the accounting institute Cipfa that its reliance on short-term fixes was not sustainable without drastic savings.

And… still, it insists on funding an unpopular retail development in Farnham that the commercial sector wouldn’t touch with a bargepole!!

Surrey has a low-level of emergency reserves and is overspending — by £11 million this financial year.

At a meeting on Tuesday, David Hodge, the council’s Tory leader, attacked the government for reducing funds. “We’re facing the most difficult financial crisis in our history,” he said. “The government cannot stand idly by when Rome burns.”

Surrey has the greatest number of high net-worth individuals of any county, more than Greater Manchester, Kent, and Hertfordshire. Its MPs include Philip Hammond, the chancellor, Michael Gove, the environment secretary, and Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary and Guildford MP Anne Milton.



A better class of political graffiti in South West Surrey..



The above picture was taken on a Sunday when the Farncombe Post Office was closed. We applaud the gorilla tactics of our local residents in photocopying articles and pasting them up for all to see! Here at the Waverley Web, we feel it is our public duty to continue to spread the word!
They were highlighting both the issue of the NHS march on Saturday that was hardly reported, that happened whilst our MP and Health Secretary was snoozing at a Hampshire spa after a 2-hour massage.

Jeremy Hunt is also in the sights of the Farncombe community for doing nothing to intervene in the ‘Horizon’ dispute between Post Masters and the Post Office. This dispute has lead to the Post Office suspending the licence of hundreds of Post Masters, meaning the Farncombe Post Office – with its essential cashpoint – is out of action whilst it is resolved.

Farncombe residents are also disgusted at having to traipse into Godalming to queue out the door in their tiny new high street shop.

Come on Jeremy – Wake Up and pull your finger out! Because your donors and your members are leaving you in their droves!

Claims that​ the Government doesn’t give a damn what councils think, but apparently, it cares what​ we think. So, shall we tell them?​​


County and borough councils are preparing for one of the Government’s worst financial settlements in their history. 

As they grapple with ways of slashing costs, by removing posts, seeking redundancies, and increasing charges here’s a little tidbit that the recently demobbed County Council Chief Executive imparted to one of his colleagues! 



Screen Shot 2018-02-05 at 12.25.27.png


Andy MacLeod the Waverley Borough and Surrey County Councillor for (Farnham Residents – Moor Park)  was speaking at a Waverley Overview & Scrutiny Committee recently.






An Inspector​ calls, time … for Part 1 of the Local Plan.


We thought we would provide our followers with a few little tidbits from the Inspector Report on the Examination of Part 1 of Waverley’s Local Plan. A plan, long in the making, prepared with blood, sweat, and a few resignations,  that will guide development in the borough through to the year 2032.

Government Inspector Mr. Jonathan Bore, found that: Waverley’s initial Plan that provided for a meager 9,861 additional homes from 2013 to 2032,  did not take account of the latest housing projections so this would now be raised to ‘a minimum of 11,210. This would meet the unmet need, of other borough’s including 50% of Woking’s  and those of the Wandsworth & Wimbledon Wanderers!

 Waverley had previously made no allowance for accommodating part of London or Woking’s unmet housing requirement. 

Why should it?

 Because  The Inspector says,  Guildford & Woking are surrounded by Green Belt, and Waverley is – “significantly less constrained,’ particularly in the East of the borough including Cranleigh. Waverley is also the third most expensive local authority region in England outside London.

elephantWell,  they are now!

Screen Shot 2018-02-04 at 21.40.49.png

The Inspector states that: “Whilst the Dunsfold Aerodrome site did not match all the criteria,’ …

‘Do we hear a huge sigh of relief from the anti’s? Including The Protect Our Waverley, or perhaps just our little corner,  sod Farnham and the rest of the borough!

Is there a glimmer of hope e hear them cry? A Judicial Review perhaps? A National Heritage order, what about newts, gnats, perhaps the odd Dunsfold Dodo or Alfold Albatross? Or the greater spotted Ames Bat? Anything, just anything? Or, of course, we could always resort to asking our Annie to get her whip out again?

We digress! This is serious stuff folks!

The Inspector says in his report… that if Dunsfold was not developed additional housing would be required in Farnham and Haslemere, and on greenfield sites elsewhere in the borough, in and around all the major towns, including Cranleigh, because of course he now recognises that with over 2,000 permission in the concrete mixer it is now Waverley’s fifth town! He also, says he doesn’t want to see too much Green Belt sacrificed. 

Phew! that’s s relief – WW thought for a moment developers would start building in the Flying Scotsmsn’s nest around Winterfold!

This section is taken from the Inspector’s report – just in case you thought we were producing fake news!

Screen Shot 2018-02-04 at 21.44.31.png

Screen Shot 2018-02-04 at 21.42.37.png

Screen Shot 2018-02-04 at 21.44.44.png

What’s more…  ‘as regards Dunsfold Aerodrome, the aim of re-using land that has previously been developed is one of the National Planning Policy Framework’s core planning principles.’

What have we been winding on about on this site since weaving this spider’s web?



Surrey County Council wished the residents of Alfold a Happy​ New Year and then sends in the bulldozers​. Did anyone​ see a planning application?


Funny that! Numerous other owners, including one who took his own life,  tried for decades to secure planning permission to build at Linden Farm in Rosemary Lane, Alfold.  No way, said Waverley Planners! No way said Surrey County Council Highways! It is a single track road in a Conservation Area!

Then along comes Surrey County Council where Waverley welcomes developers, particularly its partners.


So now Beard – Partners in Construction have started work on a facility for the mentally disabled in a country lane which is in disrepair and in a village with little or no facilities and hardly any public transport! 


Could ‘Blightwells’ signal the end of Tory-controlled​ Waverley Borough Council​?


 Why would we at the Waverley Web say anything when Farnham’s  David Wylde, and others, can say it all for us …

… except to say that we believe it may be too late for the new Chief Executive Tom Horwood to save this tainted authority, which has received a Vote of No Confidence from residents in the East and is well on the way from receiving the same accolade from the West and Central Waverley.

 The May 2019  elections cannot come soon enough! But, you know what, WW suspects that hardly any of this torrid bunch will put themselves forward as candidates. In fact here at the Waverley Web, we have been told that many councillors just cannot wait to get out! 

Screen Shot 2018-02-03 at 20.42.40.png

Screen Shot 2018-02-03 at 20.43.22.pngScreen Shot 2018-02-03 at 20.44.25.png

Letters from the Farnham Herald

25.01.2018 – Farnham Herald – Planning to should not be political copy

Click above and below for more!

25.01.2018 – Farnham Herald – Meeting was a ‘travesty’ of local government copy

Come on Javid – now jump off the fence before the marks become indelibly printed​ on your ar*e!


For those who have just come off the Moon – the NIMBY’s, aided and abetted by MP ‘Mistress’ Anne Milton and Jeremy Shunt, ignored and over-ruled the democratic decision of Waverley Planners, and the public to build on the largest brownfield site in the borough at Dunsfold Aerodrome!

In doing so – they have (a) delayed the local Plan (published yesterday) (b) have cost   Waverley taxpayers £1m in officers times, legal and experts fees and (d) have seriously delayed much-needed private and social housing. It has also forced the hand of Waverley planners into allowing unsuitable and unpopular developments on floodplains and in the countryside throughout the borough, and in particular in the East in and around Cranleigh.

Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 12.06.09.png


Now the East of the borough could get the best, or perhaps the worst, of both worlds!


Yesterday a Government Inspector approved Waverley’s Local Plan – which has been a decade in the making. However, past failures have resulted in a huge loss of potential benefits that may have accrued under (CIL) The Community Infrastructure Levy. 





Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 19.06.42.png

And.. our message to The Scotsman…

Screen Shot 2017-08-24 at 08.44.08

Here’s the Inspector’s report in full.

In conclusion, the allocation at Dunsfold Aerodrome is a key part of the sustainable growth strategy for the Borough. It provides an excellent opportunity to meet a significant part of the housing needs of the Borough, including affordable housing, on a brownfield site. It is a good example of proactive planning to achieve coordinated, well-designed sustainable development and it offers opportunities for comprehensive urban design and master planning and social and transport facilities that smaller peripheral greenfield sites cannot usually offer. Subject to MM22 and MM23, the Dunsfold Aerodrome allocation is sound.

The allocation in the Local plan for Dunsfold is for 2,600 homes. The application granted and called in by the Secretary of State is for 1,800 homes.  Shortly Dunsfold villagers meet to decide what they would like to see over the coming years included in their Neighbourhood Plan. WW doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. How about you?

Local Plan published. Is the Scotsman doing a highland fling?


Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 05.36.20.png

 We think there may be a strong chance the Scotsman is enjoying a wee dram following this statement published by Government Inspector Jonathan Bore which includes the following statement that leaps off the page!

In conclusion, the allocation at Dunsfold Aerodrome is a key part of the sustainable growth strategy for the Borough. It provides an excellent opportunity to meet a significant part of the housing needs of the Borough, including affordable housing, on a brownfield site. It is a good example of proactive planning to achieve coordinated, well-designed sustainable development and it offers opportunities for comprehensive urban design and master planning and social and transport facilities that smaller peripheral greenfield sites cannot usually offer. Subject to MM22 and MM23, the Dunsfold Aerodrome allocation is sound.

We believe Surrey County Council has encouraged fly tipping!


Screen Shot 2018-01-19 at 19.57.03.png

This is a letter we received recently from one disenchanted resident.

Screen Shot 2018-01-30 at 07.52.40.pngScreen Shot 2018-01-30 at 07.53.03.png

Screen Shot 2018-01-17 at 22.18.29.png

Screen Shot 2018-01-17 at 22.18.05.png

This is just one of many such fly-tipping sites in and around the borough of Waverley!  The WW doesn’t condone such filthy habits, but… wasn’t this the excuse some people just needed after finding the CLOSED  signs up outside recycling centres?

Screen Shot 2018-01-19 at 19.59.00.pngScreen Shot 2018-01-19 at 19.59.11.png

Surprise, surprise!


This is taken from Waverley’s New Boy’s Facebook Page because he says he is genuinely surprised by the lack of scrutiny and opposition at ‘Your Waverley!’

Watch out sunshine! Councillors are not allowed to access the Waverley Web, at least, not from the council’s internal system! And… the people of Farnham will think they have died and gone to heaven if councillors, particularly from other parts of the borough,  actually start asking what the ‘viability, benefits and current status’ of the Blightwells project actually are?

Go boy go, a bit more of this and democracy WILL rear its ugly head within that hallowed halls of  ‘Our Waverley.’


Paul Follows - Lib Dem GodalmingScreen Shot 2018-01-26 at 16.03.02.png