Another little calamity?

Well you probably won’t be meeting him now Mr Shearn, that is, unless you have something going on over there in Basingstoke?

We have been contacted by  followers asking us to investigate the numerous enforcement actions that have, and are increasingly, being taken by Waverley’s planning department – some of which sound overzealous in the extreme.


We understand  there are well tried and tested planning rules  it would be sensible for everyone to live by – but…we’ve  heard from many Waverley residents’ who believe there is one rule for some in the borough – but not for others. WW asks Why?

Residents claim their planning applications have initially not been dealt with properly, and then unnecessary enforcement  action  is taken. Appeals have been dismissed by Inspectors but the unnecessary stress and expense has caused enormous problems. In many cases if a little pragmatism and common sense had  prevailed considerable  time, stress and money could have been saved by all. Enforcement action  was taken against one resident who built an island in the middle of his  lake in Wonersh. He won his appeal and  costs of £18,000 were awarded against the council  – did WBC pay up? Not bl**** likely. They  offered him £8,000, which he refused,  and only after months of legal wrangling did he finally settle for more.

Another resident built a stable six inches higher than permitted due to a  builder’s mistake. Rather than allow a retrospective correction (easily achieved by popping in a planning application) WBC served an enforcement notice, then put lots of additional conditions on the building. No-one could see the stables adjacent to woods. However, there are numerous incidents of others building stables wherever they like in the borough.

One Rule for Them

 When Waverley’s contractors were busy wiping out every amphibian on the Farnham Riverside site in order to build their car park and tennis courts, Waverley refused to enforce the condition required under “the reptiles relocation programme.” Well why would they? After all  why should it obey the rules it expects us dummies to live by!

It  also built the new pavilion  six  inches lower than the level stipulated to avoid flooding. Again no action taken.

And then of course there are the Farnham residents who have written to WW who were not even given the opportunity to comment on proposed development adjacent to their homes in Farnham – Planning references were changed… and so it goes on…

Another for us?
Said a follower: ” I was in the planning office  and a Chinese man in his 70’s was there in tears. WBC had given planning consent for someone to build a house overlooking his home and his adjoining courtyard. 

WBC gave approval for new windows in the home that overlooked  the Chinese Family’s home and the  courtyard  where he had planted a tree in memory of his daughter. so they lost the enjoyment of their courtyard.

 The man was upset because WBC gave consent for the tree to be removed, in his courtyard, because the developer had complained it blocked the light into the window of his new home….. tragic.or what!”

We have had numerous incidences of planning inconsistencies reported to WW- too many to mention.  Double standards appear to be the order of the day. with any issues you have?

One thought on “Another little calamity?”

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.