The funny old world that is ‘Your Waverley!’


There are well tried and tested planning rules and regulations that are laid down for us ALL to live by – aren’t there?

Like taking enforcement action TWICE against a Wonersh man who built an island in a lake for the ducks to nest on! 

Or enforcement action was taken against a Farnham man who built a stable block a little too high and was forced to remove the roof – or all those innocent young couples who added the odd dormer window or went a few inches over their boundary and met your iron fist!

So… please Waverley Borough Council explain to the voting fodder of Farnham – and beyond, why major developers appear to be able to do what the hell they like – and the Planners just look the other way?


Screen Shot 2018-05-24 at 21.00.55.pngScreen Shot 2018-05-24 at 21.00.29.png


Surrey County Council is putting in another £15m to fill the county’s big black holes.



Councillor David Hodge is used to putting our money into big black holes – and guess what? He’s pictured above having just carried out another inspection and found another 32,000 of them in and around Surrey!

Council leader David Hodge announced yesterday that Surrey County Council is to add another £15m to the £5m already earmarked, to fill in potholes because another 32,000  that have recently been discovered.

Hodge the Bodge is blaming his Tory Tosser friends in the Government for not giving the council enough money to keep Surrey’s roads in good nick! Well, he would, wouldn’t he! It couldn’t possibly be anything to do with the lack of maintenance year on year. Neither could it be anything to do with teams of highway workers lobbing lumps of tarmac into Surrey’s holey roads, only for the material to come out again just days later. The tarmac sometimes lays like a missile waiting to do even more damage to vehicles as they swerve to avoid lumps of tarmac as they swerve around them narrowly missing the oncoming traffic.

Then, of course, there are the drains that are being filled in – by mistake! Read about it here: Oh dear! Did Surrey County Council Highways take us too literally?

And of course, there are all those divers who took up the latest dangerous sport of potholing with their aqualungs on their backs making them even worse like Bodgy Dave pictures above!

Poor old Surrey County Council – let’s all give them a raise in their council tax. Oops we already did, didn’t we?

But they re using £58m of “our money” from their depleted coffers to invest in another big black hole?  A retail development at East Street in Farnham. Funny that just as everyone else is baling out of retail, they jump in. They don’t call our Dave Hodge the Bodge for nothing, do they?

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

Who says nobody listens to the Waverley Webbers.

Farnham needs you! Don’t forget to vote!


Here’s the lineup for the Waverley By-election – provided by the Farnham Herald – because nobody does it better.


Labour are also standing a candidate for Waverley – Rebecca Kaye.
For the Town Council election the candidates are:

  • Jo Aylwin, Liberal Democrats
  • George Adam Hesse, Farnham Residents
  • Rebecca Louise Kaye, Labour
  • Rashida Ahmad Nasir, Conservative

Oh yes please Mr Hunt – can we have some clean air in Farnham too?


But first- could you have a word in the ear of Waverley Brough Council!  We want to know the truth- the whole truth – and nothing but the truth about its dodgy air quality data that is supposed to be under investigation by Surrey Police?

Screen Shot 2018-05-22 at 22.45.39.png

Yesterday Environment Secretary Michael Gove published a Clean Air Strategy which aims to cut air pollution and save lives, backed up through new primary legislation.

Air pollution is the fourth biggest threat to public health after cancer, obesity and heart disease and the new government strategy sets out how we will go further and faster than the EU in reducing human exposure to particulate matter pollution. These proposals are in addition to the government’s £3.5 billion plan to reduce air pollution from road transport and diesel vehicles, set out in July last year.

It is estimated that the action set out will reduce the costs of air pollution to society by an estimated £1 billion every year by 2020, rising to £2.5 billion every year from 2030.

The new strategy, which is now out for consultation, is a key part of a 25 Year Plan to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. He says:

  • Our goal that by 2025, we will halve the number of people living in locations where concentrations of particulate matter are above the WHO guideline limit of 10 ug/m3.

Presumably, he means if councils can be trusted not to fudge the data?

  • We will introduce new primary legislation, which will give local government new powers to improve air quality.

Not much use having new powers, if their data gathering is dodgy – is it?

  • We will legislate to ensure only the cleanest domestic fuels will be available for sale, preventing 8,000 tonnes of harmful particulate matter from entering the atmosphere each year.


  • For the first time, the government will take concerted action to tackle ammonia from farming – which is responsible for 88% of ammonia emissions – by requiring farmers to invest in the infrastructure and equipment that will reduce emissions. Farmers will be supported to achieve this through our new system of public money for public goods.


Well of course here’s where POW’s cow comes in handy! The Protect Our Waverley ‘Group’s is contributing at least half of those ammonia emissions!



  • We will work with international partners to research and develop new standards for tyres and brakes to enable us to address toxic non-exhaust emissions of microplastics from vehicles which can pollute air and water.


  • We will provide a personal air quality messaging system to inform the public, particularly those who are vulnerable to air pollution, about the air quality forecast, providing clearer information on air pollution episodes and accessible health advice.


  • We will put new investment into scientific research and innovation strengthening the UK’s position as a world leader in clean technology and secure further emissions reductions.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove said:

Air quality has improved significantly since 2010 but sixty years on from the historic Clean Air Act a clear truth remains – air pollution is making people ill, shortening lives and damaging our economy and environment.

This is why today we are launching this clean air strategy, backed up with new primary legislation. It sets out the comprehensive action required across all parts of government to improve air quality.


 In a research report, also published yesterday, shows just 1 in 5 respondents felt they knew a lot about its effects. There was a lack of awareness of the wide range of sources of air pollution with most naming transport as the main cause. But transport emissions are only part of the problem. From farming to cleaning solvents, and the large range of day to day practice and products which produce harmful emissions.

 Burning wood and coal to heat a home contributes 38% of UK emissions of damaging particulate matter. Cleaner fuels and stoves produce less smoke, less soot and more heat. In future, only the cleanest domestic fuels will be available for sale.

Also announced today, by Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, is a new tool for local authorities developed for Public Health England by Imperial College and the UK Health Forum which will enable local authorities to estimate the economic impact of air pollution in their area. The tool takes account of the cumulative cost for diseases where there is a strong association with air pollution: coronary heart disease; stroke; lung cancer; and childhood asthma.

He said:

Air Pollution is contributing to a national health crisis. If we fail to take decisive action, we risk more of our children suffering from asthma, and patients needlessly ending up in hospital.

Our health service can only go so far in treating the conditions that dirty air can contribute to, and we have a responsibility to stop this issue at source. Today’s Clean Air Strategy and Air Pollution Tool do just that, taking a giant step towards cleaning up our air for good.


Don’t tell us Jeremy tell your own borough council, who have been ignoring the present rules for years – let alone new ones!

You can find more information on air pollution and how it affects us all at a new air pollution explainer page.

More Gypsies and Travellers could​ be on their way to Farnham Dunsfold and Cranleigh if the Local Plan part 2 is approved.


Part 2 of Waverley’s Local Plan is presently out to Consultation.

Consultation on the preferred options will end in June. There will be a pre-submission consultation from October until December this year with the Plan being submitted in February 2019 for adoption later in the year.

Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 17.57.08.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 17.59.15.pngScreen Shot 2018-04-10 at 17.59.57.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 18.12.32.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 18.13.20.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 18.13.38.png

Screen Shot 2018-05-18 at 16.05.21.png

Screen Shot 2018-05-18 at 16.05.38.png

It couldn’t possibly be Dunsfold Park that this man is speaking of… could it?



Screen Shot 2018-05-20 at 10.12.46.png

Ah! But there are some who don’t want jobs, homes, people or traffic, a school for the autistic, or a school for villagers children in and around DUNSFOLD. Same people who, but will happily support it here in Farnham – or in Godalming, Milford, Guildford, Haslemere, or Woking, Wrecclesham, or anywhere for that matter other than – at a brownfield site in DUNSFOLD! Get it!
Oh! and many of the moaners will probably work there when all those lovely jobs arise!
As for us here at the Waverley Web, we have all had a discussion. A Waitrose would go down well – even a Waitrose at Home – to join the M & S – in Alfold. Perhaps a few other major stores that Waverley Council, together with their partner Surrey County Council – who are investing over £50million over here in retail – could match in the East of the borough? Fairs, fair after all – because their other Farnham partner Crest Nicholson – is building shedloads of homes in Cranleigh  – that nobody appears to have noticed! 

We wonder what this think tank would make of the local challenge to prevent building on Milford Golf Course?



In a nutshell – Mr and Mrs Tim House of Milford are seeking permission from the High Court to challenge the inclusion of land near their home close to  Milford Golf Course in Waverley’s (not so daft) Local Plan.

Read more here: We must talk about that Milford Golf Course covenant and that challenge by Mr House of the Local Plan!

But here’s where  The Centre For Cities believes development should go.

Screen Shot 2018-05-13 at 10.23.48.png

Milford Station is adjacent to the land in question and within walking distance of the station! 

Why is the Sorry Advertiser siding with a campaign group to stop development at Dunsfold?




Why the hell is that Sorry newspaper which now only sells a handful of rags siding with the duplicitous Protect our little Corner … over Dunsfold Aerodrome?

In a recent publication, Tom Phillips quotes Bob Lees, PoW’s Chairman, at length before going on to state: ‘PoW has campaigned against the development of Dunsfold Park and other schemes they deem “unsustainable” throughout Waverley.’


Where the hell did Mr Phillips get that idea from? Nothing could be further from the truth.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the only two schemes PoW reference on their website are Dunsfold Aerodrome and Springbok – both in their backyard, between Alfold and Dunsfold. It has expressed absolutely no interest whatsoever in any of the widespread development that is taking place a mere hop, skip and a jump away in ‘Poor Old’ Cranleigh and as for Godalming, Haslemere and Farnham, they might as well be on another planet. 

If the Sorry Advertiser did even the most minor spot of investigative reporting it would know that PoW ostensibly set up to protect ‘Our Waverley’ in reality, is only interested in a very small corner of ‘Their Waverley’! It has a handful (300) followers and no locust whatsoever for its claim to represent ‘a very large and continually growing number of Waverley residents’. It is, quite simply, the bastard sprog of Stop Dunsfold Park New Town,  ruthlessly intent on ensuring nothing ever happens at Dunsfold Aerodrome. However, great thought went into the christening arrangements and ‘Protect our Waverley’ was carefully chosen to create an illusion of inclusion and caring. Ostensibly, It claims to be interested in protecting the entire Borough but scrape the surface and you discover a small group of rabid, determined individuals dedicated to a spot of social engineering that will ensure the ‘sink housing estate’ that one of its members and Chairman of Hascombe Parish Council, OJ, sneeringly referred to at the Public Inquiry into the scheme, is never built within 10 miles of their members’ double fronted multi-million properties with their in & out drives.

And before the usual suspects start bouncing up and down, telling us we’re Dunsfold Park stooges and funded by the Flying Scot and lots of other hysterical slurs, we would like to remind everyone that the Flying Scot no longer owns Dunsfold Aerodrome. It was sold to Trinity College Cambridge so the suggestion that wee Jimmy is going to ‘fill his boots’ at Dunsfold is a long way short of the mark. And – we hardly think TCC is going to fill our boots either!

All we care about, here at the Waverley Web, is that homes should be built in the best place possible in all of the circumstances and, here in Waverley, the best place is on the largest brownfield site in the borough. adjacent to an A-road, which is considerably more sustainable than all the development that’s going on in poor old Cranleigh.

As for the Farnham argument, it just won’t wash! Farnham has some of the most congested roads in the county. Come over here and breathe our AIR, but don’t come if you suffer from ASTHMA. 

Of course, some might argue that all PoW is doing – with the aid of the Sorry Ad – is exercising its democratic right to protest but, make no mistake, there is something sinister about an organisation that not only  perpetuates lies but is supported in those lies by a local paper that either can’t be bothered to check its facts. Or, perhaps, it’s the malign influence of Rupert Howell, a senior mover and shaker at Trinity Mirror Group who own the Sorry Advertiser. Regular readers will be aware that Mr Howell has been struggling – for years – to sell his country estate, which just happens to sit cheek by jowl with Dunsfold Aerodrome. Of course, we’re not suggesting he’s bitter and twisted but his wife was a leading light of the Stop Dunsfold New Town Brigade …

The Cranleigh Society could take its fight against thousands of new homes (already consented) to Westminster!




The new chairman of the Cranleigh Civic Society told the BBC’s Live at Five programme the area’s infrastructure ‘simply cannot cope with thousands of new homes planned’

But isn’t Terry Stewart  – shutting the door after the horse has bolted? The consents granted have already reached 1,357 – and considerably more homes are proposed to meet Waverley and Cranleigh’s Neighbourhood Plan target of 1,700?

But Mr Stewart who hails from Poole in Dorset where he helped to take the town’s opposition to Green Belt development to Westminster and won, says he is not ruling out CCS doing the same. The Society is seeking a meeting with Waverley Borough and Surrey County Councils over highway issues and their concerns over the overloaded sewage treatment plan which is fouling up the Cranleigh Waters stream, where fish are dead!

He also expressed the organisation’s concern over development planned at Dunsfold Park claiming that although 2,600 homes had been approved he said:  “I have seen a document mentioning 6,000 homes at Dunsfold.” 

He claims the combined effect of development, which contains “too few affordable homes” will clog up the A281 Guildford to Horsham Road.

He told the BBC the Society was quite prepared to make Cranleigh’s plight a National issue, saying –We are prepared to take it all the way!’

You can hear his interview here: Starting at 07.10 an ending at 11.04 by clicking on the link below provided to the Waverley Web by the Cranleigh Civic Society.

If council tax increases continue at the present rate – a Band D ratepayer will be shelling out a shedload of cash​ in 20 years time.


BUT… people who have been diagnosed with a severe mental impairment, such as dementia, and live with another adult, are entitled to a 25% discount.

20 years on and ‘Your Waverley’s council tax contribution has risen by 89.90%

Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 18.54.49.png


Seven years on from the introduction of the council tax freeze scheme in 2010 – a coalition government policy of providing grants to local authorities in England to allow them to freeze Council tax – it appears that the days of inflation-busting increases are back.

Although in 2010-11 there were no council tax increases, and the numbers remained well below their pre-freeze scheme levels in the following years, 306 councils increased council tax in 2016-17, and this year this number has jumped to 331 – well within the usual rate of increases…

But a pensioner who suffers dementia has won back £7,000 after she was wrongly billed for council tax.

The 96-year-old who suffered a stroke in 2008, causing symptoms such as forgetfulness, has received the back-dated rebate. But others suffering from dementia and Alzheimers, if they live alone should be given a 100% discount.

However, tens of thousands of people are missing out because they know nothing about the tax refunds.

In the case of the 96-year-old mentioned, the pensioner’s son learned about the discount at an Alzheimer’s Society seminar at his local GP surgery. He then used the information provided on to claim £7,000 of back-dated council tax.

WW wonders how many people know about, and claim this discount in the borough of Waverley?

Please contact us

Click here to read the report

Click here for the full dataset

Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 19.02.41.png

Another – Puff of Wind – from You know who!


How to flog a dead horse until its bones rattle! Protect Our Waverley takes on yet another Judicial Review – this time against – Dunsfold Airfield!



Editor’s Note: Protect our Little Corner claims to represent ‘a very large and continually growing number of concerned Waverley residents whose interest is in sustainable, balanced and appropriate development. We are seeking development to be led by a robust Local Plan and sustainable developments that meet local need as encouraged under the NPPF.’

Trouble is they have 339 followers, which is a mere 0.27% of the population of Waverley, which was 121,572 at the 2011 census!

Never mind flogging a dead horse, this particular horse’s bones are rattling!

Ah! well, that is the price we pay for democracy – another shedload of taxpayers’ money on its way to the legal beavers!

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


Screen Shot 2018-05-13 at 16.44.45.png

After officers announced the landmark ruling at a recent Planning Committee – Waverley councillors were told that two Farnham planning applications scheduled to have been considered on Wednesday had been ‘withdrawn’ until the full implications of the court’s ruling had been considered.

Is it possible that the Farnham Residents’ councillor regularly ridiculed by Your Waverley has been proven right by – none other than the European Court of Justice?

So.. with its Local Plan challenged by three separate parties -The Campaign for The Preservation of Rural England  (CPRE); Protect Our Waverley, – and Mr and Mrs Tim House of Milford. And – another challenge lodged with the High Court last week by POW against the Dunsfold Park planning decision – could ‘Your Waverley’ be sinking under the weight of legal challenges – with yet more to come? 

Q. To ‘Your Waverley?’

  • Will it provide assurances to the public that it will comply with the European Court of Justice Ruling C-323/17?
  • If not -why not?
  • Why has it been ignoring the law for more than 11 years, on the advice of its lawyers?
  • Does it intend to continue ignoring the law?
  • Does it admit that the ruling effectively imposes a moratorium on ALL housebuilding in Farnham?
  • What LAWFUL  options are available to Waverley Borough Council?
  • If there are options – when will these options be made public.

In his letter to the WBC Chief Executive Tom Horwood, forwarded to us by another,  members, who is equally concerned, Councillor Jerry Hyman (Farnham Residents’) said:

There is considerable pressure upon me to ensure probity in this matter, as the Chairman of Environment O&S, as a Member of the Audit Committee and as the administrative Central Party Leader of Farnham Residents. I must assume that you agree that another eleven years of the lawbreaking, obfuscation and bullying that we have suffered as residents cannot be an option.

Once again, I have to again ask that you provide your personal assurance that our Officers and the Council Leadership have undertaken to comply with the ECJ Ruling, such that no consents for TBHSPA-affected development will be granted until we have a compliant Policy in place, and so that we can meet meaningfully to plan Waverley’s best solution.

If I do not receive that assurance from you by 5pm today then I can only assume that continued evasion of the law is intended, such that expansion of external investigations will need to be pursued by bringing charges of Misconduct in Public Office, and potentially of Obtaining Planning Consent by Deception, against all persons complicit in the ongoing lawbreaking.

You are no doubt aware that unfortunately David Munro, the current Elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey, was previously a part of the Conservative Leadership at Waverley. Whilst I have the utmost faith in the integrity of the Inspector conducting the investigation into Air Quality (AQ )data misreporting, the vital matter of public perception will no doubt require that an independently-controlled Police Force is brought in to conduct the widened investigation.
I trust that you do not wish to burden the Police by forcing a costly and time-consuming investigation which by rights should be entirely unnecessary.

I look forward to your response.

Cllr Jerry Hyman
Chairman, Waverley Environment O&S Committee

What was the CEO’s response?

So we watch and we wait and if we, the public, don’t get answers to our questions, we will all ring Tom Horwood on his internal number and ask him – Screen Shot 2018-05-13 at 16.53.15.png

Is Waverley’s​ property bubble about​ to burst?



It’s a fact, The UK’s property boom is spluttering and stuttering and we should all be very worried about what happens next!

Is this the reason developers in the borough of Waverley are slow to build and are sitting on their planning permissions and keeping them warm?

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 11.12.03.png

House prices fell nationally in the last three months.  The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) house price index hit zero in February. It was a bigger drop than forecast and the lowest since March 2013.

Crest Nicholson is now offering buyers of its new homes in Cranleigh six months mortgage-free. But buyers are put off by viewing new developments where the gardens of homes, built on clay,  are or have been, underwater and management fees have to be paid for the upkeep of community facilities e.g. children’s’ play areas, etc.

 Demand for homes in the UK fell for the 11th month in a row. Sellers are putting up a record lack of properties and buyers are not registering with real estate agents.

If you’re a glass half full type, you’ll be delighted. The figures suggest that Brexit is having the intended effect.

Property demand and prices outside London are beginning to feel the ripple effect, with buyers seeking big reductions. Property demand and prices in London are languishing. The great rebalancing of our nation is taking effect. No longer is prosperity tied to one city. The rest of the nation has some catching up to do.

But the problem is that house prices are dangerous by nature. A drop in London values could trigger a crash nationally.

Thanks to the vast amount of leverage you need to buy a home, falling house prices represent a huge amount of risk for the banking sector too.

But the real risk is in house price expectations. Because if expectations change, the entire equation for buying and investing in property could trigger a serious economic crisis. 

Rising house prices suck in everyone

If everyone expects house prices to rise, that changes the calculations for affordability. For the buyer and the lender.

When house prices rise, the borrower who can’t afford their mortgage can simply sell their home. The profit makes them wealthier. It feels risk-free to own property. You just need to get on that ladder somehow. It’s more of an escalator to wealth.

It’s not just the borrower who is misled by rising house prices. The bank is protected more than anyone else when house prices rise.

The value of their collateral is going up so even the worst possible borrower can repay their loan by selling out. The worst-case scenario is that the bank recovers their money by repossessing the house. In this world, lending is a risk-free deal. They’re willing to lend to anyone. It doesn’t matter who they are.

The danger of risk-free

What happens when people stop believing house prices inherently go up? They don’t even have to go down, just stop going up. Suddenly, the entire premise of borrowing, owning property, and lending falls apart.

Borrowers no longer demand unaffordable debt because it no longer enriches them. And lenders’ collateral values no longer inherently safeguard a loan. Suddenly, the lending decision is about default risk instead of collateral risk. Far fewer people can borrow in that environment.

Under those circumstances, the lending business becomes a matter of risk management instead of simple lending volume. Banks stop fighting for market share and start panicking over their default rates.

Without the presumption of rising house prices, the demand and supply of mortgages are not artificially influenced in a way that justifies widespread lending and buying. The incentives to buy property and lend against it disappear.


Godalming’s people power prevails.


Not bad for Godalming’s new boy on the block who was recently told by Tory Godalming Town Councillor Anne Gray – he had “a lot to learn!” Parents say he is – “a man of his word.”

Godalming people​ Taking Green Oak School fight to County Hall.

People power is alive and well in Godalming.

Screen Shot 2018-05-10 at 14.07.07.png

Screen Shot 2018-05-10 at 14.07.21.png



Screen Shot 2018-05-10 at 14.07.55.png


Cranleigh’s proposed new private nursing home is provoking a local storm.


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

Our site has been groaning under the weight of comments, and information from the ANGRY OF CRANLEIGH … and surrounding villages to

One said: “I’m just an ordinary working guy who set up a standing order for a new Cranleigh Village Hospital because I stupidly believed in the project! If it is true – that it is now to be a private nursing home, that I won’t be able to afford, then I have been duped! I together with many others were told by that newspaper woman Kay Newman of the CVHT that we were contributing to a hospital that would be owned by the “local” community for the benefit of the “local community.” What a load of tosh! How can I get my money back?

Another: A local business who contributed a considerable amount of money said his company has already requested that its contribution for a “village-owned hospital” and not a “private for-profit nursing home” had already been refused by the “so-called charity” and he was considering seeking recompense through the courts.

Screen Shot 2018-05-08 at 19.48.04.png

WW receive this letter from a Cranleigh resident.

Dear all at the Waverley WEb,

I had a discussion with one of the CVHT trustees recently regarding a letter in my possession saying that the exchange of the land for the hospital would only be done on the understanding that there would be 14 community beds and a day hospital. The trustee in question said in not so many words that he did not believe me, I will scan the letter tomorrow and email to you. The letter also shows that the parish counciL gave CVHT £10,000 as part of a payment to help keep the beds open in the old hospital, whether this was ever paid to PCT at the time I do not know and if not whatever happened to the money.
The community beds that the CVHT speak about is supposed to be 20, as follows 10 for social services all over Surrey and 10 for area health people (sorry can’t remember correct name) (Guildford& Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group) which will cover I think around 21 to 25 health centres which will all be able to use the 10 remaining beds, so it is no good Cranleigh people thinking they are just for them.

As Mrs Plank said, (in your earlier post)- sold down the river. A distinguished gentleman who raised money for charity once told me that if you did not succeed with at least 70% of what was needed within two years give up, where is the CVHT now 15years at least and not a brick in the ground.

Regards Sandra

A Ewhurst resident who was a member of the Cranleigh Village Hospital League of Friends, tells us, that, that the organisation has, “distanced itself for very good reasons ” from the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust,(CVHT). The President who is/was also chairman of CVHT was asked to resign, and the Chairman of the League was asked to resign her trusteeship of CVHT if she wished to remain as the head of the League of Friends.

Another resident informed us that the CVHT has employed a top PR Agency to “sell” its private nursing home scheme to the public. However, the charity has refused a number of invitations to present its plans to the parish council who provided the parish land for the venture.

A Cranleigh businesswoman sent us a letter which she had received from a former Clerk of Cranleigh Parish Council. A copy of which you can read by clicking on this link: here: CCE03052018 copy

Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 19.30.38.png

We are unable to post all of the comments received as there is a very real risk it would collapse our website but there is more – much, much, much, much more in a similar vein.

For our part, the Waverley Web would very much like to hear from the aforementioned Trustee – Kay Newman – or, indeed, any Trustee or person in the know who can throw light on this scandalous piece of chicanery. For example, has anyone considered reporting this matter to the Charities Commission or the Fraud Squad? Surely it must be illegal to fundraise for a public hospital and divert those funds into a private nursing home? Perhaps the Chairman of CVHT would like to comment

Now villagers are asking why the Parish Council did not invoke a clause in an agreement it signed with the CVHT, to return the land to the parish if the hospital the charity promised Cranleigh and the surrounding villages of Alfold/Dunsfold and Ewhurst was not built within 5 years.

We are told it is 18 years since the project, called for public money to build a replacement hospital and a new Day Hospital which would be owned by the charity for “local”  people and not, asit would appear,  for patients of the Guildford & Waverley Commissioning Group.





Farnham Castle By-Election – who dares wins.


The Runners and riders are announced for the Farnham Castle By-Election on 24th May. This election was prompted by the resignation of the chairman of the Farnham Residents Group John Williamson, and could cost up to £4,000. In a letter to Waverley chief executive Tom Horwood, Williamson explained that having spent the winter living in Italy, he and his wife decided to sell their Farnham home and relocate to the Cotswolds. Yes, that’s more than 6 months of Council meetings he failed to attend. At least he did the decent thing and pulled the plug – unlike some Conservative Councillors we could mention!


In the Farnham Castle borough by-election, they are:
Jo Aylwin (Lib Dems),
David Beaman (Farnham Residents),
• Rebecca Kaye (Labour),
Rashida Nasir (Conservative),
Mark Westcott (Independent).

In the Farnham Castle town by-election, they are:
Jo Aylwin (Lib Dems),
George Hesse (Farnham Residents),
• Rebecca Kaye (Labour),
Rashida Nasir (Conservative).

Lib Dem Jo Aylwin, a textile artist has stood at a few previous elections and has been a trustee of the Bishops Meadow Trust. It is unsurprising that David Beaman a former  Independent Farnham Town Councillor has thrown his hat in with the Farnham Residents Group this time. Rebecca Kaye has also stood for Labour before, and if the name is familiar, her train driving husband Howard Kaye stood at the 2015 General election for Labour. Howard also stood for the Town Council in this ward in 2016, gaining 86 votes. Talking of husband and wife teams, Conservative Rashida Nasir is wife to Waverley Weybourne and Badshot Lea Councillor Nabeel Nasir. They are both key movers within the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community.

A truly independent and wild card is architect Mark Westcott, prolific Herald letter writer and campaigner for independence for Shortheath and Boundstone! He regularly appears in the public gallery at Waverley Towers to question our decision-makers.
George Hesse is a former UKipper that is standing in the Town Council election under the Farnham Residents banner. herald_farnhamcastle

Our very own Puff Of Wind (POW) – blows across Waverley – again!




And … before you read another word – this information comes from our Cranleigh/Alfold correspondent of the Waverley Web. He is employed by no one – got it – no-one! He is however retired and cares passionately about Cranleigh and the Eastern villages where he was born and brought up. Like the Government Inspector, the Secretary of State, Waverley Borough Council and… most of the borough including the WW – he believes brownfield sites should be built on before sacrificing the countryside! 

He says:

In its latest post, dated 8th May, Protect our Little Corner of Waverley’s Chairman said of the organisation’s two legal challenges to Waverley Borough Council’s not so daft Local Plan and the Secretary of State’s decision to grant consent for 1800 homes at Dunsfold Park:

‘If left unchallenged, this decision would destroy irreplaceable ancient woodland and historic assets, wreck general aviation facilities – vital for business, leisure, training and emergency services – and ruin the quality of life for thousands of people for decades.’


Who is Mr Lies trying to kid? The people who signed up to Stop Dunsfold Park New Town (SDPNT), before signing up to its sprog, Protect Our Waverley (PoW), were the very same people who objected to Dunsfold Park’s return to aviation following BAE’s departure from the aerodrome. Indeed, one Mr Peter Barker, (I have my own helicopter) a local resident and leading-light of the SDPNT campaign, memorably, went on Radio Surrey, in 2010, to object to the Surrey & Sussex Air Ambulance’s application to lift restrictions on its flying hours at Dunsfold Aerodrome, saying:

There are a few God-given rights and one of those is the right to have an undisturbed night’s sleep and if this application goes ahead, it won’t be just a small area, it will be a large area where the sleep of people will be completely destroyed.’

Heaven forbid that lives should be saved at the expense of Alfold and Dunsfold residents getting a good night’s sleep!!! Those very inconsiderate people who might be in dire need of the services of the Surrey & Sussex Air Ambulance, clearly needed to ensure they scheduled their life-threatening accidents between 9-5 on Mr Barker’s watch!!!

There has to be something seriously amiss with people like this. They are utterly shameless professional serial objectors – perfectly happy to change their views with the wind and take on board whatever argument best suits their purpose at the time. In earlier years they complained so vociferously and frequently to Waverley Borough Council about noise and disturbance issues at the aerodrome that the Council had to create a dedicated Dunsfold Park complaints page on its website, whose opening gambit was:

‘If you feel that there is excessive noise coming from Dunsfold Park … please use the Dunsfold Park online complaints form.’

Now those same people who were busily uploading their noise complaints are complaining that the latest plan to build homes at Dunsfold Park – a plan which would eradicate their complaints about noise and disturbance from Top Gear, corporate jets and helicopters – are complaining about the ‘wreck[ing] of general aviation facilities’!!! To misquote Jacob Rees-Mogg: It’s cretinous!!!

Having spent years complaining about Top Gear and Wings & Wheels, they didn’t hesitate to do a 90-degrees hand-break turn and start urging fans of both events to object to the planning application for 1800 homes as it would lead to the loss of Top Gear and the Air Show!

It begs the question, who are these people?

Protect our Little Corner or Puff of Wind –  claims to represent ‘a very large and continually growing number of concerned Waverley residents’ – yes, all 339 of their followers! – ‘whose interest is in sustainable, balanced and appropriate development. We are seeking development to be led by a robust Local Plan and sustainable developments that meet local need as encouraged under the NPPF’.

No doubt that explains why the only planning applications referred to on their website are Dunsfold Park’s and Springbok’s. They take absolutely no interest in developments outside their own little catchment area of Alfold (population 1059) and Dunsfold (population 989). So, there you have it, folks, with a combined population of 2,048 people they can only muster interest from a mere 16% of the combined population of its immediate catchment area …

...And if we look to the wider borough – which they claim to represent – where the population is 121,572 – they are representing 0.27% of the population! Talk about the tail wagging the dog!



OOps! Was that a Puff of Wind we just caught?



Is it possible​ that the Farnham Residents’ councillor regularly ridiculed by Your Waverley has been proven right by – none​ other than the European Court of Justice?


Waverley Borough Council sticking its head in the sand – may prove to be another setback for its Local Plan.



From the moment Jerry Hyman took up his Farnham Castle seat at Waverley Towers, he has been banging on about the council’s consistent failure to recognise the importance of International legislation concerning development near sites protected by the Habitats Directive.

Sites like the Special Protection Areas (SPA’s) around  Farnham, Haslemere and parts of Godalming.

The latest ruling could have serious implications for sites like; The Farnham Hopfields; East Street; and many more, where decisions have been made by councillors who stubbornly refused to heed  Councillor Hyman’s repeated warnings about “obeying environment law.”. 

He has been derided, ridiculed, ignored, called to order by planning experts, lawyers, and the huge Conservative Group that rules our failing borough. An authority now up to its neck in three Judicial Reviews and another launched on Thursday! Councillors, including Waverley’s Mayor, have repeatedly prevented him from highlighting the very real concerns of Farnham residents. One Cranleigh councillor even suggested that the onset of climate change – could move one protected species, the Dartford Warbler –  north, thereby leaving more Farnham land available for developers! ‘ 

Another Judicial Review was launched on Friday by The Protect Our Waverley Group against – yes you guessed – it had to be… – Dunsfold Airfield!

The irony of the ruling handed down by the European Court of Justice follows a challenge by the Irish Government after another group called  POW  – People Over Wind! campaign, (Perhaps our POW could be re-named as it has much in common?) It sought to revoke permission for proposals by Coillte Teoranta – a company owned by the Irish state, to lay a cable connecting a wind farm to the electricity grid.

Screen Shot 2018-05-07 at 19.05.48.png

Screen Shot 2018-05-07 at 19.08.39.png


Read the full article and European Court decision here:

Habitats ECJ Judgment Ireland May18 ENDs Mag

Not a fitting turn of phrase from Your Waverley’s Portfolio Holder for Communications?


Amazing stuff from Waverley’s former Portfolio holder for communications: Stephan Reynolds.

The Twit – Twitters to his Tory mates.

But of course we here at the Waverley Web believe Councillor Reynolds when he says his Twitter account was hacked – because he is an upstanding member of Waverley Borough Council and his service to the borough and in particular former Leader Bobby Knowless – has been exemplary… hasn’t it? 

Bit silly to use the excuse that he uses the same password for everything though!! And… do you remember when he joined the LABOUR PARTY “by mistake.”

Read our Post here: You can’t-fool me, Comrade…

31530515_185128785471714_4212164900673290240_o.jpgI’m a

Meanwhile, back at the ranch in Godalming  residents don’t believe him and start posting other screenshots from his twitter:


Now Godalming’s new boy on the Waverley block wades in, with a very sensible comment which incurs the wrath of one of his Tory colleagues who appears to be backing Councillor Reynolds slip of the lip?  Did he say, “You need to keep in touch” Councillor Follows?  – Not a very nice remark to make about a new councillor who, despite being on a short learning curve, appears to have scored a  huge success with the town’s parents by helping them prevent the county council’s numpties from closing Green Oak School!

We here at the Waverley Web believe all its members could benefit from a little extra training. They may even learn to turn off their microphones before insulting the villagers of Ewhurst and Cranleigh!

Screen Shot 2018-05-05 at 22.47.18.png

Oh dear – now come on guys play nicely!


The Waverley whine-athon which outdoes the London mara-thon.


Because the WWinathon goes on and on and on – adnauseum!

What a pity Appalled of Awfold, Cheated of Kerchingfold, Disgusted of Dunsfold and Hacked-off of Where-has-all-the-traffic-come-from, don’t stop whinging and do their homework.

In the latest whine-athon published on PoW’s website, on 25 April, the aptly named Bob Lies lives up to his name and accuses Waverley Borough Council of a CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) Give Away to Dunsfold Park.

In the article, Mr Lies says, ‘Surely it cannot be right that the present Council is giving away the right of a future Council to raise much-needed money for infrastructure from the owner of its largest strategic site … We call on Waverley Borough Council to clearly explain to its residents – Council Tax payers and voters – why it is being so generous to the developers of Dunsfold Park and the owner Trinity College Cambridge, at the expense of the local parishes and the whole Borough?’

As Mr Lies knows full well, for he and his cohorts, not to mention CPRE and PoW’s barrister – The Stinch – have crawled all over Dunsfold Park’s S106 & Infrastructure contributions. The Waverley Web animated-spider-image-0201knows because the Waverley Web was hanging from a dusty corner of the council chamber listening to every word! Remember us?

Under CIL, the Borough would be entitled to somewhere in the region of £10-14 million. But under a legally binding S106 agreement between the Dunsfold Developer and WBC, the Borough would be entitled to circa £125 million!!!

Do the math Mr Lies, and the same applies to the Cranleigh Civic Society … but, of course, you don’t want to. You’re much keener to spin the facts and make the Dunsfold Developer and Waverley BC look like the bad guys by pedalling yet more misinformation and blatant lies. We’re the first in line to criticise ‘YW’ but in this instance, Potts & Co have got it right!

According to our mole inside Waverley BC, the Dunsfold Developer and Trinity College Cambridge are currently looking at a shopping list from Waverley BC and Surrey CC that is shaping up as follows:

Pre-school, primary school and secondary school provision £10.5 m
Transport improvements £42 m, 


Not to mention a host of other sums being dished out to local leisure centres, health centres and anyone else that cares to bring out the begging bowl! And that’s before they even begin to build their own infrastructure and facilities in order to ensure the residents of the new village at Dunsfold Park don’t become a drain on other local communities.


So tells us, Mr Lies, how deep into their profits did Berkeley Homes, Cala Homes, Linden Homes – to name but a few of the developers concreting over the Cranleigh countryside – dig? We confess we don’t actually know, but what we do know, courtesy of our Waverley mole, is that it doesn’t even scratch the surface of what the Dunsfold Developer is dolling out!

So, why not live up to your organisation’s name, Mr Lies, and start protecting and protesting about what’s going on in the rest of Waverley rather than just your own little corner of it?! HOW ABOUT MOANING FOR THE FARNHAM AND GODALMING AREAS THAT ARE QUITE LITERALLY BEING STUFFED AND WHERE RESIDENTS ARE CHOKING ON TRAFFIC FUMES!

In the meantime, we at the Waverley Web call upon Bob Lies and his cohorts, not to mention the Parish Councils, why THEY are being so cavalier with Council Tax payers and voters’ money in trying to judicially review the Local Plan? They’ve had their day in court, as it were, challenging the Local Plan and Dunsfold Park’s planning application at a call-in! Now they want to waste yet more of Council Taxpayers and voters’ money – whilst applying to limit their own costs to a mere £10,000 under the ill-conceived Aarhus Costs Rules! It’s an absolute travesty and, we repeat Council Leader Julia Potts’ rant, a shocking waste of Council Taxpayers and voters’ money!!!

AND P.S. We get our information from inside WBC – and we are NOT as you have mentioned the PR Agency for Dunsfold Park. Oh! how we wish!

We wouldn’t be scraping the bottom of the barrel to keep this site going if we were!

Join the ‘we cannot understand the new Waverley Planning Portal Club’, ​Mr Westcott.


Here at the Waverley Web, we advise you not to even try to navigate the New Planning Portal that the numpties at Planet Waverley have recently introduced.

Because if you do you will be totally discombobulated!

Despite complaints from the – public – local businesses – parish councils – no doubt ‘Your Waverley’ whilst quoting its mantra of openness, transparency, honesty and paying lip-service to local democracy would, if it was honest,  would actually prefer you didn’t venture into the morass of planning applications that may affect where you live/work or play! Because if you could find the information you want, you might comment on it! 

Because… if you cannot look at stuff online and you cannot stand to watch its webcast going on and off or sticking at regular intervals, then you will shut-up and put-up, bury your head in the sodden Waverley Wealden clay and behave like the voting fodder they expect you to be!  

Anyway, did you really want to know what the Woolmead in Farnham will look like `Mr Mark Westott?  Of course, it’s considerably larger than the previous Woolmead scheme, and, of course, no-one other than the developer knows it!  – Because, like you,  none of us can understand the drawings. However, we all know the Berkeley Bunnies only burrow into great big holes! Because it is only big holes for big buildings that bring home plenty of lettuce!


Screen Shot 2018-05-03 at 20.09.35.pngScreen Shot 2018-05-03 at 20.09.48.png

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


Screen Shot 2018-05-01 at 13.05.41.png

Poor old, poor old, poor old Cranleigh – whose residents appear to have been SHAFTED, yet again! This time by a so-called charity!

We, here at the Waverley Web, are a cynical lot – you may have noticed?! – but we fell about laughing at a recent ‘story’ in the Sorry Advertiser linking the contribution that the old Cranleigh Village Hospital made in the War with that of a new ‘Replacement Hospital’ for which villagers have been waiting – and are still waiting! – for over 20 years!

The ether has been positively humming since the Sorry Advertiser’s yarn and our inbox is overflowing with the indignation and wrath of dozens of our followers over there in the East, eager to set the record straight.



In the meantime, the proposed new, PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT, Nursing Home, for which a planning application has been pending – ‘any day now’, according to its supporters – since 2016(!), is still, mendaciously, being touted as CRANLEIGH HOSPITAL! Which, we’re told, is an outrageous calumny! Yes, the project was sold to gullible Cranleigh residents, not to mention a few of the early donors,  as a new, all-singing, all-dancing village hospital to replace the existing, much-loved but dated facility, but that is no longer the case – if, indeed, it ever was!

Now, the PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT nursing homes wants to build 26 homes for ‘HEALTH WORKERS’(!) in its grounds! The very same land which if, it was still owned by the parish council, could have provided a hugely valuable asset for generations of Cranleigh people!

Although there is a proposal to include 20 beds, 10 of those are earmarked to both save and make Surrey County Council a shedload of money, as they will enable the sale of the closed Longfields Alzheimer’s home, off Ewhurst Road, to become – yes, you guessed it! – another new housing development! The remaining 10 beds will be so-called ‘community beds’ for the Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) – in other words, for patients from all over the Guildford & Waverley CCG area!! So much for localism! This fact has been confirmed to the Waverley Web by Dr David Eyre Brook of the Guildford and Waverley CCG!Screen Shot 2018-04-30 at 10.53.55

In the meantime, the existing Cranleigh Village Hospital building has become the permanent home for a Guildford & Waverley CCG Outpatients’ Clinics hosting an ultrasound machine, treatment and waiting rooms. Patients from Godalming and Guildford no longer need to travel to Milford or Guildford, they just tootle down the B2130 and the A281 to Cranleigh.

According to Cranleigh residents – who almost brought down the Waverley Web website (in their outrage, both they and the villagers they represent have been ‘shafted and shat-upon-from-a-great-height’ by the once revered Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust, which snaffled very valuable parish recreation pitches in a land swap, together with millions of pounds of publically raised money for – A VILLAGE HOSPITAL – that has now morphed into a PRIVATE, FOR PROFIT nursing home with 26 so-called key-worker houses and 16 parking spaces!

Many Cranleigh residents and fundraisers for the original dream-scheme – a new, free at the point of use VILLAGE HOSPITAL – are now alleging that a former parish councillor was ‘duped’ into donating the land, in exchange for recreation land nearby, believing the public would get the VILLAGE HOSPITAL they were duped into raising millions of pounds for!

They also believe a previous Parish Council, led by the late Councillor Brian Ellis, signed a document in December 2010, which gives the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust (now being dubbed the Cranleigh Private Nursing Home Trust!) the right to use the Snoxhall Playing fields access road for vehicular traffic across its land to the new 26 homes! FREE GRATIS AND FOR NOTHING (if you discount a tawdry peppercorn rent of £1!!!).

So there you have it, folks! Once again, the village dubbed by Waverley councillors as, ‘Poor Old Cranleigh’ has, in the words of its residents, been WELL & TRULY SHAFTED again…

Just to add insult to injury, residents over there tell us that £173,000 of the 106 Legal Agreement monies contributed by Berkeley Homes is going to provide a 3G all-weather pitch for the pupils of the £30,000  year Cranleigh PUBLIC School. “Poor old Cranleigh.” shafted yet again!!

Here’s just one of the letters received by the Waverley Web last year. The latest comments are too strong to print!  

Screen Shot 2018-04-30 at 14.25.04.png



Legal challenge couple urge ‘Your Waverley’ to play fair.



Screen Shot 2018-04-30 at 09.46.26.png

Tim House, who with his wife Isobel has issued one of three writs against Waverley Borough Council Local Plan claim that they have not been motivated by NIMBYism but because Waverley has refused to acknowledge the enforceability of a covenant on a Milford site earmarked for development in the plan.

The Local Plan was examined by inspector Jonathan Bore and pronounced sound in February, subject to some modifications, including an uplift in the number of homes required to be built in the borough each year from 519 to 590. The new figure takes account of the fact that Waverley has been told to take some of Woking’s allocation after its Local Plan showed a shortfall.

Mr and Mrs House live in Station Lane, adjacent to Milford Golf Course, part of which has been removed from the Green Belt and designated as suitable for development. Now housebuilder Stretton Milford Ltd has leafleted householders in the vicinity asking their opinions on proposed designs for the 180 homes it hopes to build. No formal planning application has yet been submitted, but the change in designation of the land will make the granting of planning permission much more likely.

But Mr House says the land is protected by a covenant dating back to 1929 that Waverley is refusing to acknowledge, which restricts development on either side of the boundary between the two properties.

“Our main objection is that there is a covenant over our property and the golf course, “This limits any development by us, or by the owners of the golf course. Our gripe is that when Waverley called in sites for developers it should have been disclosed. It doesn’t state no development: it just says that any development is to be limited to a certain style and a certain density.”

Mr House, a lawyer, says that repeated attempts to get Waverley to acknowledge the enforceability of the covenant had been stonewalled. The covenant on the land was put in place when the couple’s home was built in 1929.

Mr and Mrs House were among three parties lambasted by Waverley Borough Council Leader Julia Potts recently in a statement which accused the Houses, the Surrey branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and local pressure group Protect Our Waverley, of ‘bullying’ behaviour in bringing the legal challenges.

Read her comments here: Potts lambasts the challengers of Waverley’s Local Plan as “despicable.”

“I am appalled that we have to spend money on legal expenses again, when we could be spending it on services – £200k at a time when as a council we face enormous financial challenges and are doing our utmost to deliver and protect key frontline services for our residents and many of our most vulnerable members of the community,” she said.

“The adopted Local Plan is Waverley’s lawfully adopted framework for development and planning decisions. The plan will continue to be our guide for all future development in the borough despite these challenges and will be our guide for the life of the plan, as I am confident that we will successfully defend the plan against all three challenges.

“This council will instruct the court that we will pursue full reimbursement of all legal costs we incur and will not accept anything less. These campaigning pressure groups must understand that this irresponsible abuse of public money will not be tolerated by Waverley Borough Council and its residents.”

Mr House says: “Her statement seems to be directed to ‘these campaigning pressure group’”. That is not us. We aren’t bullying WBC or any residents. We aren’t trying to overturn the whole plan, we just have a specific challenge to one site (Milford Golf Course). The bullies here are WBC. They are riding roughshod over legal rights and ignoring the wishes of Witley and Milford Parish Council about where development in Milford should take place. They have forced the Neighbourhood Plan Committee to withdraw from site selection in Witley and Milford. They have turned a blind eye to the independent survey of local residents which favoured alternative sites.

“The simple fact is that the land proposed for development at Milford Golf Course, which no local residents favour as a preferred site, cannot be developed for large-scale housing because there is a legal restriction on it. Julia Potts’ frustration is that her council apparently did not spend £6 carrying out a Land Registry search in 2014 to check that very basic fact and Crown Golf, who proposed the site, seem to have conveniently overlooked it too. Taxpayers’ money and ours is being wasted correcting that non-disclosure.”

The Surrey branch of the CPRE claims the Local Plan is “not sound”.

Protect Our Waverley (POW) lodged its challenge in the High Court on March 29th.

Bob Lees, Chairman of Protect Our Waverley, said: “It is most regrettable that POW, along with others, is having to challenge the unwarranted imposition by Inspector Bore of an unsustainable increase in housing to be built over the next 15 years. Common sense tells us that people who want to live in Woking do not want to live in rural Waverley. So why should Waverley have been forced to accept 21% more new homes purely on the basis of Woking’s ‘unmet need’? This challenge to Inspector Bore should properly have been made by Waverley Borough Council itself, at the time of the Public Examination, but they stayed silent despite having themselves challenged Woking earlier in the year. Had they done so then the extra houses wouldn’t now be required and neither would the challenges by POW and others.”


Are the rats about to desert POW’s sinking ship?



Our Dunsfold Village followers tell us that Alan Ground, a leading light on Dunsfold Parish Council for many years (not to mention his below-the-radar activities at the heart of the Stop Dunsfold New Town and Protect our Little Corner brigades), has finally thrown in the towel and decided to jump ship following the great ‘Dunsfold Disaster’ as it is now referred to by …some! 

A vehement objector to pretty much anything and everything taking place at Dunsfold Park, during his years on the Parish Council, it would seem that ‘Gone To’ Ground is now determined to shake the dust of Dunsfold from his du Barrys and move to pastures greener.

His home, the seven-bed, Old Rectory on Dunsfold Green, is on the market for £2,750,000. Knight Frank, the estate agents acting for Mr Ground, wax lyrical in their particulars about the property, which they say ‘occupies its own island site in an enviable and private setting close to the sought after village of Dunsfold and within the Church Green Conservation Area’.

Apparently, there is additional accommodation in an adjacent coach house, which has its own sitting room, kitchen, dining area, bedroom suite and a second bedroom, not to mention a separate access and parking away from the main house. And, if that were not enough to tempt prospective buyers, there’s ‘a superb billiard room next to the Coach House as well as a triple garage with adjacent store’, with yet another separate entrance north of the main drive. Sounds like a developer’s wet dream!

The deposit alone for Mr Ground’s des res would gobble up a first time buyer’s entire budget (if they were lucky!) and interested parties will have to dig deep – very deep – to fund the £243,750 stamp duty bill, not to mention the monthly mortgage payments which could set the new owner back as much as £12,928.00!

It would be interesting to know what Mr Ground declares when he completes the Property Information Form. As tempting as it might be for him to take the view caveat emptor (buyer beware to the readers of Waverley Web!), as a lawyer, he will be only too well aware that he should declare details of any disputes with neighbours – and not just those adjacent to his property! According to our Dunsfold Village correspondent, Mr Ground has lodged so many complaints about his neighbour, Dunsfold Park, over the years, he could write a book, never mind fill a form!

Mr Ground will also be obliged to reveal details of any development or planning permission in respect of properties nearby. Oh, the irony of it! Having fought against the development of a new town on his doorstep for the past 15 years, Mr Ground is now going to have to notify prospective buyers of his own property that’s why he’s moving!

And he also has to provide details of planning permissions and building control completion certificates – or lack of! But, being a lawyer, no doubt all of Mr Ground’s paperwork will be in order. Heaven forbid he has to go crawling to Waverley Planners seeking retrospective consent … Wouldn’t you just love to be a fly on the wall in Liz-the-Biz’s office if that came to pass!

So there you have it, folks, anyone with a few million lying around who fancies a smarty-poos address for themselves – let’s face it, the middle-classes do love their Old Rectories, Old Stables and Old School Houses – can check it out with Knight Frank:

‘Man overboard!’ has become the cri de coeur at PoW HQ in recent weeks as, according to our POW informer, one after another, their ardent supporters are deserting the borough. James Northcote Green was the first to lose his nerve and take flight, swiftly followed by Grace Watson and now the ‘Gone to’ Grounds. Will there be anyone left to man the barricades? 

 Here at the Waverley Web, we hear they are taking bets over there in the East on who will be next out of the leaving gates!


Should our Jeremy hang his head in shame?


Can people power help an 89-year-old granny keep her American owned GP surgery open in Harlow, Essex?

We very much doubt Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Health and our MP will read this, or listen to this video – but many others have and will!

Connie Scott and the 3,300 other patients are horrified that their local GP Surgery is to close after more than 60 years – could one of our practices in the borough of Waverley be next? Because just over the border in West Sussex the same company terminated five contracts in Brighton leaving 11,500 patients without a GP and has also closed the Maybury surgery in nearby Woking.

Click on the link below:


Screen Shot 2018-04-29 at 10.01.07.png

89-year-old Connie Scott takes to the streets to fight for a GP – a disgrace or what?

People power is alive and well in Godalming.


Surrey County Council has backed down from its ill-conceived stand to close Green Oaks School in Godalming. So three cheers for parent-power!

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 09.14.39


After 94% of the 1,000 respondents to the ill-thought-out  “tick box” Surrey County Council consultation, the authority has taken the sensible step of stepping back and actually considering what harm the closure would inflict on the town of Godalming – in particular, Ockford. 

Please note the last sentence of the RECOMMENDATION!  Closing the school would result in a significant capital cost to the Council for providing the places at alternative settings. 


Screen Shot 2018-04-28 at 10.13.29.pngScreen Shot 2018-04-28 at 10.22.54.png

Oh dear! Times are getting hard for Godawfulming.


No Civic Dinner this year for the beleaguered Godalming Town Council – just a bag of crisps and a drink- no doubt purchased at Aldi or Lidl?

We know times are hard in Local Government Circles – just across the road at ‘Your Waverley’ it has revealed it only made £800,000 on its investments this year! So no doubt the champagne is flowing there! You would have thought they might have lobbed a few bob across the road to their Tory mates for the town’s annual bun fight? 

Screen Shot 2018-04-25 at 11.06.55.pngBut then of course – the new Mayor Anne Bott has had more than her share of little local difficulties this year, taking over half-way through former councillor Simon Thornton’s Mayoral Year and joining Surrey’s chain gang!

Former Godalming Town Mayor charged with sex offences.

Oh! and didn’t Councillor Bott have another little spat with the Clerk of Godalming Town Council, who was secretly “dealt with” at some considerable cost to Godalming ratepayers? And, we have heard from a few other parish clerks in Surrey that Mayor Anne has upset quite a few of them by sending out an e-mail in her role as the Assistant Cheif Executive Officer of the Association of Parish and Town Councils. A Consultation on non-other than The Ethical Standards / Code of Conduct!

Is the Mayor of Godalming, former Waverley employee, Godalming Town Councillor and assistant Chief Executive Officer of the Surrey Association of Local Councils telling everyone how they should behave, but not following her own advice?

Maybe, she should take a leaf out of the book she is asking everyone to read? 

This, and several other messages too strong to print was sent to us by several clerks of Surrey Parish Councils who were too “fuming” to respond. Safer…safer to respond to us! Do we hear bullying tactics being used here?Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 18.03.01.png

(we are withholding his/her/their names for fear of reprisals.)Screen Shot 2018-04-11 at 19.34.08.pngPC05-18 Local Government Ethical Standards

Not much to even raise a glass too really is there?


It finally happened – the Waverley Web is speechless​!





Screen Shot 2018-04-26 at 09.34.16.png

Potts lambasts the challengers of Waverley’s Local Plan as “despicable.”

While Farnham man rejoiced, Milford Man WAS BUSY TRYING TO SCUPPER THAT DAMNED PLAN!

Nightmare on Waverley Street?

Potts lambasts the challengers of Waverley’s Local Plan as “despicable.”


Potts goes Potty… AGAIN!


POW (Protect Our Waverley) the CPRE (Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England) and Mr and Mrs House (though she didn’t mention them by name) came in for a right rollicking from leader Julia  Potts at the Full Council meeting on Tuesday.

She began her tirade of chastisement gently saying  “how extremely disappointed” she was, by the three legal challenges, and how “unfair” it was of “them” to involve local taxpayers in £200,000 plus of legal costs.

But then she revved up the rhetoric, saying: ” I am appalled  I am absolutely horrified that these groups want to waste taxpayers money by trying to   sabotage the Local Plan – it is despicable.”

She said both POW (a limited company) and the CPRE had ticked the box on the legal papers marked AARHUS  (The Arthur’s convention which set a limit on costs of £5,000 for individuals and £10,000 for companies) – thereby limiting their individual costs to just £10,000 whilst the cost to the borough would be huge.

But she warned, all challenges would be defended robustly, with no stone unturned, all those involved in the Judicial Review had been given ample opportunity to have their say since 2013, and their concerns had been heard, listened to, and debated upon. The Local Plan was approved and would be fiercely defended.

Cranleigh Councillor Mary Foryszewski shared her “anger” and asked would the courts allow the challengers  to risk so little of their money after forcing  the Council to, “Spend, spend, spend.”

Councillor Jed Hall said – “the armchair pressure groups” should not be allowed to undermine local, and national planning decisions.

… However,  not everyone agreed.

Farnham Residents’ Councillor Jerry Hyman side-swiped the leader Julia Potts for her inexcusable use of the word “despicable” saying to describe Waverley residents as “despicable” was taking too harsh a line. “We should respect our residents’ and their right to challenge – if the courts decide they are wrong then so be it. But it was their right”  He said there were also many other residents of the borough who believed it was wrong that Waverley should be forced to take part of Woking’s unmet housing need.

Councillor Wyatt Ramsdale – admitted he wasn’t a massive fan of the LP,’ but, “this plan is better than no plan. Our residents have every right to criticise but the NIMBY approach here is just for their particular area!”

Planning Portfolio Holder Councillor Christopher Storey stressed that the Local Plan meant Waverley was no longer Developer-led, but Plan lead, and it carried full weight and would be defended. Any attempt to question its entirety would destroy the council’s credibility.

A Question from Godalming Councillor Paul Follows “What if the challenge succeeded?” fell on deaf ears!

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 22.21.34.png

As time goes by…Cranleigh Village employment site R.I.P!


Bemoaning the past is considered unhealthy by some, but where exactly will those small start-up businesses operate from in the future?

Brian Steel’s facebook comment has a point – where will all those new home occupiers work, rest and play? In Horsham/Crawley – Guildford – Farnham-London? Or… maybe Dunsfold?

Waverley Borough Council – prompted by a local councillor, proposed building a replacement Hewitts Industrial Estate in woodland adjacent to the Mansfield Park Estate in Guildford Road at Rowly. But of course, WBC has sent £1m aside for the development it would part-own!  So no problem getting planning permission there then?

Coming soon to a green field near you!

Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 11.02.16.pngScreen Shot 2018-04-17 at 11.07.39.png

Then, of course, we have heard from our followers that the site which was spearheaded by a local farmer to give locals a purpose-built business unit. It also boasted such tenants as P & P Glass, Muriel Short Designs; Mike Short Wallpaper; (He papered the walls of Royal Palaces); Decorex; and more…

Perhaps the locals over there can tell us more at

Wealthy neighbours of Cranleigh Cricket Club FAIL in their attempt to bowl a googly​ at its practice nets!


Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 21.06.07

Cheers for Cranleigh Cricket Club – -v- Common residents and the parish council

Here at the Waverly Web we have often wondered why people buy homes around picturesque cricket grounds and then start moaning about cricket balls flying around. Or in Cranleigh’s case “horrible”  unsightly” cricket practice nets that prevent them flying around!

Probably because the thwack of leather on willow and games played by men in whites on picturesque village greens paint a picture of idyllic village life – but the reality is slightly different.

Along with the typically English country scene – comes the downside! BALLS – which sometimes have to be contained by… NETS!

We once heard of a Waverley borough local who let his dog crap on the cricket pitch while youngsters were having a game near his home. He claimed as it was recreation or common land, he was quite within his rights!

The Secretary of Cranleigh Cricket Club when faced with a £6,000 bill for removing, and replacing this metal structure every year said removing them every season would severely impact on the club’s finances and its ability to provide coaching for over 200 youngsters, both on Cranleigh Common – land’ and at local schools.Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 19.12.28.png

He stressed permanent nets was a “standard requirement” of the English Cricket Board, and a bid by neighbours to have them removed and re-erected every season was unheard of anywhere else in the county, or anywhere in the country! 

He argued, that the club, which had played on Cranleigh Common for more than 150 years, was a thriving asset which in addition to coaching its own members coached children at three local primary schools.

However, Cranleigh parish councillor Rosemary Burbridge described the new nets as ‘horrible’ saying they were both detrimental to the area and the residents’ amenities in the Conservation Area and they should not be permitted to stay. Councillor Patricia Ellis agreed, saying the frame was both “unsightly and unattractive.” Councillor Liz Townsend agreed but said a “compromise” could be found.

Neighbour Richard Everett pictured, said although he was “supportive of the game of cricket”…

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 19.13.34.pngwhich presumably is why he bought a home overlooking the common?

Believed Waverley’s eastern planning committee had an “obligation to uphold the Conservation Area Act and protect the character and appearance of the area.” So the cricket net structure should be removed at the end of every season and re-erected in April!

While councillors deliberated the officers’ recommended to allow an existing planning condition to be changed giving the club the flexibility for the structure to remain with nets being removed after the last competitive game in September, and for -paraphernalia – screens to be re-sited. Councillor Mary Foryszewski said perhaps “compromise” was the answer.” The club said painting the structure GREEN, would make it less intrusive.  Councillor Stewart Stennett agreed saying, the so-called ‘untidy paraphernalia’ – e.g. screens which had been there for over 100 years – were on wheels and could be moved around the common whenever the club liked.

So, he said: for goodness sake grant permission and let me go home and get my tea.”

We wonder what comes next?

Banning parking around Cranleigh Common, no doubt? After all who wants cars,  bringing in spectators, cluttering up residents’  front yards!

Godalming people​ Taking Green Oak School fight to County Hall.


Will the reckless officials of Surrey County Council, who only last week squandered the opportunity to receive £380,000 from Taylor Wimpey to provide school places in Farnham – ignore the anger of Godalming residents at the proposed closure of ‘Green Oak School.

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 20.18.33.png


Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 20.09.57.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 20.09.46.png

Click on the link below to read of the Farnham debacle!

When is someone, somewhere, going to stand up and tell Waverley Council it is no longer fit for purpose !

Have a guess how much money, NOT having a Local Plan, has cost the Waverley borough?



The mathematicians in one small part of the borough – but an area most affected by not having an up-to-date blueprint for development, has had the abacus out! And Cranleigh Civic Society’s findings make grim reading, they are quite simply – staggering! Particularly if these figures are extrapolated across all the major towns.

 At last, we have a LOCAL PLAN, but even that is now the subject of three separate Judicial Reviews to be heard in the High Court shortly!

An agreed LOCAL PLAN gives Waverley Planners power to control future housing development; they can plan for the development of new infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, hospitals etc.  More important 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 developments to go ahead. What a wonderful step forward we all exclaim!! and so it is. But what of the housing already approved? 2,000 houses and growing every day throughout the borough. 

Unfortunately, CIL is not retrospective.

How much will Waverley charge?

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 building away from the approximately 2,000 houses so far approved, there will be a loss of CIL to the tune of a minimum £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? It happened because our planning officers at Waverley 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 us as council tax payers was to identify suitable sites for new housing. This has to satisfy the Central Government’s housing policy, a requirement that was for about 350 houses a year until 2032. Woking BC have had an agreed  Local Plan for some years that has now proved inadequate, so the inspector added a further 150 or so houses per year to WBC’s to cover their shortfall! So WBC’s Yearly 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 recently to take account of some of Woking’s unmet need. 

What of democracy?

Of these 7,126 houses, a minimum of 4,300, rising to perhaps 5,000 are planned for CRANLEIGH and DUNSFOLD, 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, there will be a new roundabout at Shalford. The Elmbridge Road and Bramley crossroads junctions will be reconfigured, 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 not affordable. However, Waverley is stipulating in the Draft Local PPlan {Part 2)Screen Shot 2018-04-10 at 18.03.33.png


So if anyone comes along with a cunning plan for introducing a new railway line – “the movement corridor’ is protected! So watch out By-Pass Byham you may get what you wished for!


There is a plan for 1,800 homes, plus businesses,, shops, a school, a medical centre approved by the Government.  The adopted Local Plan, now being challenged also includes increasing this to £2,600.

Dunsfold, due to its approval when 106 agreements were applicable and due to the limitation CIL would have on this major development there will be NO CIL. However, the Dunsfold developer will be contributing well over £50m towards a whole series of infrastructure improvements, not just the five included in CIL contributions.

And that is just the East of the Borough. Maybe, someone over here in Farnham will do the maths here?

Much of this article was contributed to the Waverley Web by the Cranleigh Civic Society, we have however made a few minor alterations in the interest of accuracy and the up-to-date situation on challenges to the Local Plan.


The battle goes on for Green Oak School, Godalming, but is Surrey County Council listening?


Why would Surrey County Council want to close a School and Nursery at a time when Godalming is growing?

Here’s what Councillor Penny Rivers told the Extraordinary Meeting in answer to the question ‘Should Green Oak School and Nursery Close?’



Screen Shot 2018-04-19 at 09.14.20.pngScreen Shot 2018-04-19 at 09.14.39.png

Penny, Ollie, Paul Follows and the Green Oak PTA parents have submitted some formal questions to the Tory SCC Cabinet next week.

We must talk about that Milford Golf Course covenant and that challenge by Mr House of the Local Plan!


As “Your Waverley’ keeps the champagne on ice – here’s one of the reasons why OUR LOCAL PLAN has been halted in its tracks!

houyseshouse.jpgThe very thorough Bea at the Haslemere Herald featured the issue of Mr House’s Covenant on Milford Golf Course, which is now the subject of a legal challenge to the Local Plan.

According to the Herald’s busy little Bea, in the Local Plan part one, surplus land at Milford Golf Club was allocated as a ‘strategic’ site for 180 houses, although it is in the green belt. Government Inspector Jonathon Bore has requested it’s GB status be removed to help meet Waverley’s and some of Woking’s housing targets.

However,  the land is the subject of a restrictive covenant owned by adjoining householders who are determined to prevent a major development on their doorstep.

The historic covenant allows some development, but not on such a large scale. It stipulates “one detached dwelling house to the acre with one lodge and one cottage suitable for and intended for occupation by a gardener, chauffeur or other employees of the occupier of the said dwelling house”.

Let’s all hark back to the ‘good old days’ when we all had housekeepers, gardeners and indeed the new must-have  –  a chauffeur.

Mr House seems to be relying on this very old-fashioned covenant, in a document he is yet to disclose to the Council or the Planning Inspector. The Covenant doesn’t save the site from development, in fact, it actually encourages development! 

As the ‘Houses’ (very apt name for a lawyer attempting to prevent just that) but acknowledges, the total number of units which could be built consistent with the covenant is 81: 27 main dwelling houses together with up to two units of staff accommodation on each plot (see §29 of counsel’s opinion).

Whether 27 or 81 is used as the number of units that could be built consistent with the covenant, any additional disruption would not be sufficiently substantial to satisfy the test.

The existing house is well set back from the boundary line and shielded by a mature boundary of trees and hedgerow. The house cannot be seen from the development land. In addition, there is no good evidence (indeed any evidence) to show that any reduction in value to the House’s land would be significantly affected regardless of whether the development was 27, 81 or 180 units.

Waverley’s detailed response to the Local Plan inspector about the covenant – [link] with some excerpts highlighted below:

Haslemere Herald report of Local Plan February 2018

Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 12.18.36.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-17 at 12.19.37.png

No doubt the High Court will be viewing those conveyancing documents soon?!

Godawfulming’s Town Council forced into action by its residents.


Feelings are running so high over the threatened closure of Green Oak School, that the Town Council was forced into calling an EXTRAORDINARY TOWN MEETING – the first in its history.

But the Tory-controlled council – that has more than just a few skeletons in its council cupboards – was at pains to point out to its  Surrey County Council masters that pressure from residents forced into such an unprecedented step.

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 13.43.49.png

Hark! Is that criticism of their fellow Tory colleagues that we hear… no surely not! 

In the second par – in Godalming Town Council’s letter, an extract of which appears above and the full text in the attachment below – it speaks of the electors’ frustration!

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.06.23.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.08.07.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.08.32.pngScreen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.08.51.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-16 at 15.09.07.png




With delicious irony, in a recent story in the Sorry Advertiser a headline read HOMES NEEDED BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ROADS? alongside a photograph of The Wintershall Estate actors who brought Guildford High Street to a juddering halt as they performed The Passion Plays on Tunsgate over the Easter weekend.

Relegated to page 13 – unlucky for some! – was the Sorry Ad’s Round-up of reactions to Dunsfold news. Bob Lies, chairman of Protect our little corner of Waverley, opined: ‘While more housing is needed it should be put in the right place and Dunsfold clearly is not the right place with its totally inadequate infrastructure.’

WHAT is that man on? The only thing that is clear about this whole sorry saga is that Bob Lies and his campaigning cohorts consider the largest brownfield site in the borough, with direct access onto an A-road – moreover an A-road that doesn’t even appear in the top 10 busiest A-roads in the county! – ‘clearly is not the right place’. The man and his minions are barking! The only people that deem Dunsfold Park ‘not the right place’ are some, and it is only SOME, residents of Alfold and Dunsfold, who don’t want their rural idyl polluted by  people who, once the new village is built, will – in the words of Dunsfold Park’s QC, ‘Live more sustainably than they themselves do.’ What a nincompoop. We’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating, Mr Lies would do well to take a leaf out of the late Sir Denis Thatcher’s book:


While Mr Lies was saying, ‘We now trust the local authority and the site owner to work closely and constructively with the local community to ensure the adverse impacts of the development are minimised ‘ his legal beavers were preparing to challenge the Local Plan. ...’ To the best of our knowledge Dunsfold Park has spent the past 15-odd years trying to work with the local community, and at every turn, they have been snubbed and vilified by Mr Lies and his predecessors, Stop Dunsfold Park New Town.

In the Bramley Babes Update, published on the same day as the Sorry Ad, it said:‘Despite all of our best efforts, this is not the decision we were hoping for. Should have added: we’re not giving up…yet!

We know from our Bramley correspondent that year after year tickets for Top Gear were requested and generously donated by Dunsfold Park to the village fete and Bramley and other Infants School, helping to boost their coffers!  What price a little gratitude?

Meanwhile, MP Moaning Milton, who made no secret of her opposition to Dunsfold Park and, in cahoots with fellow MP Jeremy S-Hunt, are guilty of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds council tax payers money making Waverley Borough Council jump through hoops in its bid  to meet the housing quotas dictated by their Conservative Government, now has the nerve to pontificate:

‘Now that the Planning Inspector has approved the building at Dunsfold, it is absolutely essential that every possible step is taken to fund and provide the supporting infrastructure we need. This will be critical during the construction period. I will, therefore, pursue every possible mitigating measure to help local residents in Alfold and Cranleigh.’

What a pity Moaning Milton didn’t give some thought to the millions of pounds that could have been spent on local infrastructure if the Dunsfold Developer hadn’t had to fight, tooth-and-nail, her dirty little behind-the-scenes shenanigans. We wouldn’t go knocking at the Dunsfold Developer’s door if we were you, Moaning Milton!  You’re the last person likely to persuade the DD  to support any initiative you’re spearheading. From what we’ve heard from some of the Dunsfold businesses.

 You won’t be invited to break ground, you’ve spent far too much time breaking wind!

Meanwhile, there’s a little light relief on the Sorry Ad’s Letters Page:

H Alexander of the Residents Greenbelt Group, claims that ‘buy-to-let landlords have effectively bought every property built since 1985′ and that ‘Solving the housing crisis will not be achieved by destroying the countryside but by sensible policies such as reversing buy-to-let so as to bring those 5 million properties into occupier-ownership.’ Watch out Jeremy S-Hunt – AKA Peter Rachman of Southampton – Comrade Alexander has your buy-to-let portfolio in his sights!

• Meanwhile, Paul Woodhams, of Merrow, is ‘appalled at the decision to allow 1,800 homes to be built on Dunsfold Park. No thought has been given to the problems of the extra traffic along the A281.’ Durrrhhh! Where have you been, Mr Woodhams? One of the reasons the application was consented is due to the proposed mitigation measures improving the traffic problems on the A281. The learned gentleman goes on to say that he ‘suppose[s] our local Members of Parliament will be silent on these plans ...’ If only! Again, where have you been? Moaning Milton has been banging on about nothing but for years!!!

Disgusted of Woodland Avenue demands to know, ‘What makes it OK now when it hasn’t been viable before?’ Does anyone bother to read the paperwork? The Planning Inspector and the Secretary of State in their respective report and decision letter were at great pains to explain what makes it OK now when it hasn’t been viable before! Get with the programme Mr Baldock! Try reading the report then you won’t make a fool of yourself asking daft questions that everyone else knows the answer to, even if they don’t care to admit it because it’s such a very inconvenient truth that Dunsfold Park will make the A281 less congested if and when it’s built than the road would be if it isn’t built!

Seriously, folks, no one minds you having your say – after all, it was still a free country last time we looked – just! – but if you’re going to pontificate, at least take the time to do your homework, read the paperwork and try to get your heads around the facts rather than the drivel that has been propagated by the likes of Bob Lies – the clue’s in his sobriquet!


The controversial consultation on 180 homes on Milford Golf Course – begins.


See if you can spot Milford Man’s great big pad- next to the golf course, and near the railway station, below?

Milford man is just one of the band of three challenging Waverley’s Local Plan. Read it by clicking on the link below.

Read all about him here: While Farnham man rejoiced, Milford Man WAS BUSY TRYING TO SCUPPER THAT DAMNED PLAN!

30571467_10156393777224973_4679740440952438784_o.jpgDid you Spot the big House house in the bottom right-hand corner right next door!

But remember CPRE – more land in Surrey is under Golf Courses than housing – at the moment:


Ah! well,​ Jeremy SHunt – we all make mistakes…but not all of us get away with them so easily!


Screen Shot 2018-04-14 at 11.10.47.png


Here’s our post a month ago: Hypocrite Hunt hoovers up homes in Hampshire!

The UK health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has apologised after it was discovered he made errors over the purchase of luxury flats on England’s south coast.

Hunt said his failure to declare a business interest with both Companies House and the parliamentary register of MPs’ interests was down to “honest administrative mistakes” and that he did not gain financially as a result.

Hunt failed to notify Companies House of his 50% interest in Mare Pond Properties Limited, named after his home in Markwick Lane, Hascombe – something that took him six months to rectify.

He also did not inform the parliamentary register of members’ interests of his share in the business within the 28-day time limit, according to the publication.

It is claimed Hunt set up the company with his wife, Lucia Guo, to buy seven properties in the Ocean Village development in Southampton on 7 February.

A spokeswoman for Hunt said: “These were honest administrative mistakes which have already been rectified. Jeremy’s accountant made an error in the Companies House filing which was a genuine oversight. With respect to ministerial and parliamentary declarations, the Cabinet Office is clear that there has been no breach of the ministerial code.

“Jeremy declared the interest to them after the company was set up. They advised that as it was a shell company with no assets or value, it should only be registered

As those potholes get bigger – there may be even worse to come!


Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 12.16.39.png

South East Water received reports of customers in Sheephatch Lane, which include the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association’s Islamabad base and Garner’s Field scout campsite, having no water.  An inspection revealed part of the road surface had collapsed from a leak in an eight-inch diameter water main.

The lane will be closed from its junction with Tilford Road until Monday, April 16.

South East Water said:  “We would like to apologise for any inconvenience this repair work has caused the local community and thank them for their ongoing patience.”

Although a severe example, it adds to a raft of potholes and damaged road surfaces across the whole of Waverley. Not all of the damage has occurred this winter, some occurred in 2016/17 and remain to be filled!

Large potholes have formed on several key roads across Farnham, with notable cases on the A325 outside the Co-op in Wrecclesham Road and in West Street near the Coxbridge roundabout.

A number of motorists have taken to Facebook to report damage to their vehicles after colliding with the potholes.  Jack Butterfield blames the A325 hole for blowing his tyre and chipping his alloys – causing hundreds of pounds of damage. Others have reported damage which has wrecked the wheels and mechanics of valuable cars. Motorists say they will be seeking compensation from Surrey County Council for repairs.  

It comes after the county council announced a new £5 million investment in the county’s roads “to help reverse the impact of the winter’s weather” last month.

Surrey has also recently been named the worst county in the UK for potholes.

Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 12.16.21.png

Here’s what Waverley Web suggest…

Because potholes are appearing faster than Spring lambs!  ..!!!Come to Surrey and visit the UK’s capital of potholes – on and off-road! or 


Here’s what one Farnham resident writes in the Farnham Herald.


Potts goes…potty!



… and who can blame her?

After all her hard work and all that heavy-lifting, dragging Waverley Borough and its Council into the 21st century, creating and adopting a long overdue Local Plan, Protect our Little Corner of Awfold, Duncefold, Kerchingfold and Where-has-all-the-traffic-combe-from have waited until two minutes to midnight to throw a hand grenade into the room!

Together with the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the ineptly named Mr & Mrs House (seriously, you couldn’t make that one up!!!) PoW have launched a legal challenge over the adoption of Waverley’s Local Plan!

Call us cynical but we – and pretty much everyone else who knows anything about it – suspect that this is POW’s cunning ploy to scupper the planning consent just granted to Dunsfold Park. The infamous Bob Lies and cohorts are simply re-running the same old, same old arguments they ran at the recent Dunsfold Park Inquiry.

ANOTHER circa £200,000 down the borough drains!

As for CPRE, their knickers are knotted over Woking’s unmet housing need, which was added to Waverley’s numbers, resulting in an additional 83 houses per annum to Waverley’s target. OK, we get it, it’s not ideal but what CPRE fails to tell the public in its indignant, self-righteous justification for its actions is, that if it gets leave to appeal, not only will that leave Waverley totally exposed because it won’t have an adopted Local Plan but residents will have to cough up circa £200,000 to defend CPRE’s action!


No wonder Potts has gone off on one! She said: I am appalled that we have to spend money on legal expenses AGAIN when we could be spending it on services – £200k at a time when, as a council, we face enormous financial challenges and are doing our utmost to deliver and protect key frontline services for our residents.’

Too damn right! And as Waverley council tax payers, we at the Waverley Web fully endorse, Potts’ assertion that the Council will ‘pursue full reimbursement of all legal costs we incur [and] these campaigning pressure groups must understand that this irresponsible abuse of public money will not be tolerated by Waverley Borough Council and its residents.’

We never thought we would find ourselves saying this but – deep breath


Now here’s a thought: why not give CPRE £200,000 to go away? After all, we all know these so-called rural campaigners are open to a spot of bribery!

We’ve all heard the one about how Clive Smith, the Surrey Hills AONB Planning Adviser (and bosom buddy of CPRE, whose AONB Board he sits on) repeatedly objected to Lakshmi Mittal’s £30 million mansion that he wanted to build in the Surrey Hills until, finally, finally, FINALLY, the billionaire took the oft repeated hints dropped by Mr Smith and his colleagues and greased the palm of the Surrey Hills Trust with £250,000 of silver and then suddenly – but entirely unsurprisingly – Mr Smith did a complete volte face and withdrew all his objections! Result! A win for the Surrey Hills AONB and a win for Mr Mittal, who got his planning permission.

Just goes to show everyone has their price – even so-called rural crusaders!

The hypocritical Clive Smith even went so far as to sing for his cheque by rocking up at the billionaire’s estate, quaffing his Champagne whilst bad mouthing all other development in the Surrey Hills! We know we’re repeating ourselves but, seriously folks, you couldn’t make it up! if only these people could see themselves as others see them … Now you know where Cheque book Clive got his sobriquet!

So there you have it, Leader Potts, it’s just a thought but why not take a leaf out of Mr Mittal’s book and call down to the Accounts Department and ask them to write CPRE a cheque for £200k to make them go away? OK, you won’t save any money but you’ll save yourself and your officers a shed-load of work and stress and you could save local residents from having several concrete mixers full of more housing dumped on us!


Durrrh! You really need to read the small print!

What CPRE’s Surrey Director, Andy Smith, didn’t tell us when he was sounding off, is that if Waverley’s Local Plan fails and a new one has to be created Waverley could end up with even higher housing numbers being dumped on its green and pleasant fields because the Government will shortly be bringing out yet another new method for calculating housing numbers so we could end up with even more houses rather than less!!!

The words Be careful what you wish for come to mind …

PS. For those of you who’re wondering where Mr & Mrs House fit into the scheme of things, see our post of 7 April. And for those who can’t be bothered, here’s a quick resume: They’re just your average Surrey NIMBYs. They object to a proposal to build 130 houses on a golf course near them and as Mr House boasts of a successful 30-year career as a litigator, what’s he got to lose? After all, with his salary and bonus package, he can afford to dig deep if Waverley goes for costs!

While Farnham man rejoiced, Milford Man WAS BUSY TRYING TO SCUPPER THAT DAMNED PLAN!


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


Here’s his message to townsfolk,  which was forwarded to us here at the Waverley Web by a follower. In his message, Councillor Follows did not include a picture of himself. 


Paul Follows - Lib Dem GodalmingTonight I attended the public meeting in Godalming regarding the exam question ‘Should Green Oak school be closed’ – to an earth-shattering ‘No’ from the assembled electors of the town.
Fantastic democratic expression and I was proud to be a part of it.

I was also proud to introduce my guest, Mrs Lou Anderson of the Castle Hill Academy Trust to challenge the utterly false notion that there are no options and to put forward, to the town – proposals and future discussion points.

The diocese and others clearly object to councillors such as myself stepping into the search for a MAT. But if the people who should be looking, aren’t – and I have little confidence they have tried – I will step in for the good of the community (as an elected representative of that community) and do what I feel needs to be done. This is what I did today – and I will be working with the reps of the diocese and the proposed MAT to try to work through some of the more difficult issues to be addressed.

I have really tried to resist being too party-political during the campaign to save the school – but I say this last comment to a number of conservative councillors who decided to utter some unhelpful comments to us following the meeting –

I will work with anyone I need to in order to help get this done – but put in the work in the real world and not just when someone gets a camera out. Real cuts across the board from your party are a HUGE contributor to where we are today, and especially in communities like Ockford And Aaron’s Hill. Take responsibility for that too in the same way you take Party money and logo when you stand for election.

Finally, I want to say a massive well done to the parents, especially Karen, Nicole, Claire and Pete (and everyone else who spoke and asked extremely sensible and relevant questions). I would also highlight that MATs getting in touch with us only happened due to the massive publicity and social media presence generated by parents and Liberal Democrat councillors so a shared ‘well done’ all around.

Onward and upward. Tonight opened up new paths and opportunities to explore!


When is someone, somewhere, going to stand up and tell Waverley Council it is no longer fit for purpose​!



Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 21.29.55.png

The residents of Farnham deserve better than to watch this for the first 15 minutes of Waverley most senior planning committee as they debated the details of a major – 120 housing scheme on the old Hopfields that affects the residents of Crondall Lane in Farnham!

You guessed – that webcast that was flogged on E-Bay wasn’t working… again…!

The system is not for purpose and neither is the council!!

Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 19.05.27.png


They also deserve better than the muddled, confusing, misleading, and according to many councillors the “gobsmacking” apologies for errors, inaccuracies, misinformation and the revelations provided by planning officers. The joint planning committee heard with incredulity last night, that a major developer’s infrastructure contribution for a circa £150/120m development of 120 homes at Crondall Lane, had dropped from an amazing £914,000 at the outline stage of the scheme – to £514,000 at the detailed stage. 

Oh! and guess what – Surrey County Council couldn’t come up with a project for provision of the necessary primary school for the children from those 120 homes, so they just let the developer get away with contributing, – yes, you guessed, nothing! Is that the same county council that has just put up our council tax by 6% because it is strapped for cash!

Suffice to say a member of the public Stewart Edge, raised a shedload of issues; but of course, we couldn’t actually see him! Farnham Residents councillor Jerry Hyman raised another shedload and whenever he bowled a googly at the so-called ‘experts’ he was either fed a fair amount of the stuff we put on our roses or was shut-up by Chairman Peter I tell residents ‘what I think of them only when the mike is off’ Isherwood! And his side-kick Carole Cockburn said, – we are where we are – ‘though I am a bit concerned for the residents of Beavers Close and Beavers Road’ (in other words ignore all the mistakes) and then she said – let’s approve it!

Just as we all just got to the point when Councillor Jerry proposed that the application be deferred – following cries from others of –

the committee was misled at the outline stage” – “Why weren’t we told there was to be a £300,000 reduction in the Infrastructure contributions,” “why have certain conditions been excluded, others are not tight enough.” “Why can’t `I understand the report,” Why aren’t the pages numbered – it is so confusing.” What if our decision here tonight brings on another legal challenge?  And from non-other than councillor Brian Adams the former Portfolio Holder for planning – I am astonished at the scale of the changes,” and so it went on and on… and on!

The Betty BIZ said: “The mitigation agreed remains sound, it is not appropriate to revisit that.”

However, Jerry Hyman said the council’s lawyer Dan Lucas told the Joint Planning Committee  IN APRIL 2017 that the “catchall principle does apply to habitat applications and so the principle of development can be reviewed and, in fact, must be reviewed if an error was made!

And then just as it got really interesting … the WEBcast finally gave up the ghost and died!!

Probably because ‘Your Waverley’ has just cocked up again!



We are putting our bets on with Bet Fred for another Tory whitewash!

Here’s the link to the webcast that starts at 1 hr 25 mins.

Screen Shot 2018-04-09 at 20.27.29.pngWe have the answer from one of our followers:

 Councillors have granted full planning permission for 120 homes on the Beavers Rd ‘hop fields’ in Farnham – despite a dramatic £380,000 cut in Taylor Wimpey‘s infrastructure contributions for the long-mooted scheme. Full story in this Thursday’s Herald.

Waverley/Surrey Conservatives missed £380,000 from Developers on Hopfields!
Local Liberal Democrat Stewart Edge has slammed Waverley and Surrey Councils for giving up £380,000 of available infrastructure development money from the Hopfields development – leaving no contribution for additional primary school places required for children living there.
At the final Hopfields planning meeting, Stewart asked why the proposed ‘Section 106’ infrastructure contribution totalled only £534,152 when the total had been £894,518 at the meeting in 2015 when outline permission was granted.
The startling answer was that Waverley and Surrey’s Conservative Councils between them had failed to specify specific projects that the rules said were needed to claim the full amounts.
So they signed contracts which fixed the contributions demanded from the developers £380,000 lower than available – and in the final planning meeting said they could do nothing legally to increase these now.
What a disaster! £380,000 less for public services; £380,000 more for developer profits.

Green Oaks School closure prompts emergency Town Meeting tonight.


green_oaks_JH2There is outrage in Godalming today as local MP Jeremy Hunt (who once opened the Forest School at Green Oaks above*), now sends commiserations for its closureeven though no decision has been made!! Remember we are in the middle of a Surrey County Council consultation (or have you and your mate – and Godalming SCC Cllr Peter Martin already made all the decisions behind the scenes?)

Feelings can be summed up by this local resident’s post:


One of the key questions of the meeting is whether a religious education is more important than having a school at all. The Diocese who run Green Oaks seem to be prepared to close the school rather than let a non Christian Academy take it over.
Jeremy Hunt put his support of the school closure down to “these difficult financial times” no doubt he’s referring to the  austerity measures created by the Conservatives? 

In the meantime local Councillors and parents have even taken the fight to the Department of Education no less, in a search for a Multi Academy Trust to take on the school. Impressive stuff:

One of those Councillors was new boy Paul Follows, who wrote an update here. Who will turn up at this meeting to face the parents? Lets hope they get some answers this time, although we aren’t holding our breath!

*so proud was our Jeremy he put the photo on his own website.

What will it take to persuade Waverley councillors they’ve got it wrong over the redevelopment​ of Farnham’s East Street?


Since the Waverley Web was founded we have watched the chequered story of the Redgrave Theatre – its closure and the controversy that has raged since the whole Brightwells site has become a town eyesore.

As the retail situation seems to be worsening (now Prezzo is going and probably others too) the prospect for new retail and new restaurants seems decidedly rocky. Who would invest in such ventures now?

How can Surrey County Council, which is cutting children’s services, restricting care for the elderly to only those in ‘acute need,’ as well as leaving some of our roads impassable, believe it wise to invest over £50 million of taxpayers monies in such a risky venture?  

Isn’t it time ‘Your Waverley’ re-thought its strategy and maybe ….finally…realise that the only draw that will bring in the public is based on a cultural experience.  A theatre and perhaps a three screen cinema with a shared auditorium would do the trick.

Most residents recognise that Julie Potts, the present leader was landed with a done-deal, and inherited a stack of past mistakes made by Chief Executives Christine Pointer and Mrs Mopp – (Mary Orton-Pett.) But surely there no good reason to keep piling mistake upon mistake? It’s never too late to learn, but it would take a brave man/woman to do a volte-face.

If not, we may just have to wait and vote the Waverley dinosaurs out when we can.Screen Shot 2018-04-08 at 18.41.35.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-08 at 18.56.17.png

There will shortly be a by-election in Farnham. 

While Farnham man rejoiced, Milford Man WAS BUSY TRYING TO SCUPPER THAT DAMNED PLAN!


While ‘Your Waverley’ held its breath, hoping and praying its Local Plan would pass the dreaded deadline for a Judicial Review – up popped not one, not even two but three challenges!

Nightmare on Waverley Street? Here’s  WW’s post – first with the news…again!

Here’s just one of them – Milford Man Tim House, who has 30 years experience ‘litigating and resolving complex disputes!’ Oh dear! Do we see even more of our money going down that great big legal drain?? Now a man familiar with resolving disputes is creating one! Because he doesn’t want homes built on Milford Golf Course in his back/front garden!

Well -we have heard from the NIMBY”S (Not in my backyard) and from the NIMFY’S (not in my front yard) and now from the bloody BANANA’S (BUILD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ANYWHERE NEAR ANYONE.)

Screen Shot 2018-04-07 at 10.13.33.png

Screen Shot 2018-04-07 at 10.13.45.png