NEWSFLASH – 425 NEW HOMES HEADING FOR CRANLEIGH

Screen Shot 2016-03-31 at 16.19.20.png

WE PROMISE THIS IS NOT AN APRIL FOOL – THAT’S COMING TOMORROW!

THE FLOODGATES HAVE OPENED METAPHORICALLY BUT  LETS HOPE NOT LITERALLY – IN CRANLEIGH?

WANNABEE DEVELOPERS AND SOME WAVERLEY COUNCILLORS WILL BE JUMPING FOR JOY  AS THE GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR ANNOUNCES HIS DECISION.

You heard it here first that a Government Inspector has this afternoon granted the appeal by Berkeley Homes Strategic  Limited for outline permission for 425 houses on land behind Cranleigh High Street on the Bonham Land, with access off Knowle Lane anD Alfold Road, off Elmbridge Road , Cranleigh.

As predicted by the Waverley Web three weeks ago the decision would be given within two weeks,  it has taken the Inspector just a few days longer.

The Ccok-a-hoop developers now have six weeks to hold their breath and hope that there is no legal challenge to the Inspectors’ decision – and then a full detailed planning application will follow and so will the earthmovers!

These are developments now in the pipeline with permission tucked firmly under developers belts:

125 homes at Amlets Park, Amlets Lane, Cranleigh.

150 in Horsham Road Cranleigh behind the Hitherwood Estate. Phase 2 to follow.

19 at Cranleigh Brick and Tile Works in Knowle Lane.

425 at Berkeley Homes site above.

120 at Appeal by Threadneedle on The Hewitts Industrial Estate,

and many, many, many more, awaiting approval even development on Cranleigh’s Green Belt!

But of course – none of these cars will use the Horsham to Guildford Road – the A281…will they?

If anyone wonders why this has occurred – because Waverley Borough Council has not yet managed to produce its Daft Local Plan!  Which by the way has been delayed yet again!

When they were handing out brains, did Waverley councillors/officers, stand in the line signposted drains!

You may be aware that the first major responsibility of WBC’s new Head of Planning (Elizabeth Sims) and the new Council-Leader-Elect-In Waiting (Julia Potts) was their delegated decision to issue a negative EIA Screening Opinion to Crest last Tuesday.  This enables CNS/WBC to circumvent the requirement to first provide a workable dedicated Construction Access for Brightwells so they can ‘bring forward’ the extensive Sewer Diversion, drainage and archaeological investigation works.   CNS estimate 1,200 HGV movements.   

In response  to the elevated ladies’ misbehaviour, a Screening Direction Request was submitted to the Secretary of State on Thursday by  Farnham resident Jerry Hyman.

Hence there are some exciting new acronyms for WW followers to live with :  SO (Screening Opinion), SD (Screening Direction), SOR (SO Request) SDR (SD Request), NPCU (National Planning Casework Unit) and SofS (Secretary of State).

 Don’t be put off by the complexity of this issue – this has serious consequences for Farnham’s future! In fact, if the council can cheat in Farnham – it can cheat in any of the other towns and villages!

Screening Rules

  • A Screening Request must answer the question, “Is the Project EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) development ?”.
  • A Council must issue a SO within 21 days (unless otherwise agreed).
  • A Negative Opinion means ‘it’s not EIA development’, an Positive Opinion means it is.
  • If a developer disagrees with a Council’s positive SO then it can request a SD from the SofS, who must give his Direction within 21 days (unless otherwise agreed).
  • A third party can submit a SDR to the SofS, but the SofS is not legally bound to issue a Direction. 
  • The SofS is the ‘National Authority’, and so a SD from the SofS is determinative, i.e. it trumps a Council’s Opinion.

 

The Royal Deer Charade –  a U-Turn for Farnham’s Traffic ?

At the end of last Thursday’s Town Council Annual Electors’ Meeting at the Bush Hotel, the Mayor Cllr Pat Frost kindly ended eight years of WBC denials about Crest’s impractical new road system. 

In response to a question from Mr Hyman’s father who  pressed for a demonstration of the Crest Nicholson /Surrey County Council’s fantasy ‘Paramics’ computer modelling of the Royal Deer junction, Mrs Frost surprised us by admitting that “There has been Paramics modelling done, but not of that junction”.    

Well there you are then – eight years to finally tell the truth, better late than never we suppose!

As long-time Chairman of both the SCC/WBC Local (Transportation) Committee and the Farnham Traffic Task Group, Cllr Frost’s belated admission stands as firm confirmation that Crest’s 2008 Transport Assessment (TA) and Environmental Statement (ES) do not assess the likely consequences of CNS’ changes to the road network As the 2nd East Street Portfolio Holder Cllr Chris Mansell told us eleven years ago, it’s “hopeless”  –   they can’t model it because the system gridlocks.   

The Mayor’s admission also confirms that every East Street consent has been granted unlawfully, i.e. without a complete ES. 

CNS’ fraudulent assessments allowed WBC to grant consents by falsely concluding that their plans to deliberately gridlock the town would have a “negligible impact”.  The S106 Agreement calls it “traffic reduction measures”.  The plan is to force shoppers to either ‘Park & Stride’ or go elsewhere.   

We must not allow WBC/CNS to commence any more works without having ever assessed the impacts on traffic, air quality and the local economy.  We can expect WBC to try to again revert to lies and denial to sweep this under the carpet, so please be prepared to help make a sustained fuss about it.  

The Waverley Leadership’s tangled web has created a situation where not only the East Street Scheme, but also the Woolmead redevelopment, the Hopfields scheme, the Air Quality Action Plan, the draft Neighbourhood Plan and WBC’s draft Local Plan are all based upon a shameful pretence which Waverley, Surrey Highways and Crest have conspired to maintain since 2005. 

 

 

So many secrets, so many lies?

fRAUD copy.jpg

Read the full Surrey Ad article below

 

It is our view at WW, that this fraud proves that Waverley Borough Council is guilty of maladministration in not having sufficient supervision of standard work practices.

It is  also guilty of covering up its  maladministration in order to manipulate May 7th 2015 local elections and  guilty of not being open and transparent as required by the Local Government Transparency Code 2015 by informing the local taxpayers of their mistakes.

Because of these transgressions the public have had no chance to ensure that the correct adjustments to their supervision and work practices have been made to prevent a future similar occurrence.

There is no longer any need to hide under the cloak of secrecy quoting sub judice.  The case is closed the criminal has been found guilty and sentenced, so how about coming clean Waverley BC this is  not just  our view here  at WW –  this view is shared by many other taxpaying residents of the borough, including some who voted in the 2015 election!

It is believed Waverley Council lost £25,000, which it was unable to recover. Its insurance premiums will also increase as a result of its poor work practices. Perhaps it will come clean with the figure “Your Waverley” has actually lost of “our money”. However, don’t hold your breath! Because so far they have refused to reveal these details.

We do not know the name of the individual that changed the account details but as stated all they had to do was go to Mears office in the Council building. The ineptitude of Paul Wen – ham – I getting out and claiming my big fat pension) and the Financial incompetence of Finance Director Clark should be  exposed and they must explain!

The Executive and Audit Committee members should resign. This fraud was covered up to prevent bad publicity before the local elections.

A request has been made to Grant Thornton (The Auditors) to do a Public Interest Report on the 14/15 accounts. If that is successful (some hope there!) the Council will have to hold a public meeting within 30 days to explain themselves.
Here’s a pdf of the article in the Surrey Advertiser her: fRAUD copy

 This is a freedom of information request from Mr Brian Egan of the address below.

‘ALPENROSE’, 44, OAK TREE ROAD,MILFORD,GODALMING,SURREY,GU8 5JJ

25th March 2016 My Ref. BE/WBC/298

To: Gillian Carson-Jones Waverley Borough Council, The Burys, Godalming, Surrey.

Dear Madam

Re: FOI request WAV 1401828/1401837/1401846 dated 3rd, 7th & 12th Dec.2015 answered on 5th January 2016.

In light of the recent court case held in Wolverhampton Crown Court on 22nd March 2016, as a result of which Matthew Lowe was found guilty and sent back to prison for the fraud he perpetrated on WBC, and your refusal to answer my questions in the above FOI request on the grounds that it was not in the public interest and would prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, I hereby request an internal review of my FOI request.

I do not consider your statement that to disclose information about the fraud is not in the public interest because ever since the whistleblower revealed the fraud on 15th October 2015, some 18 months after the event, there has been a huge amount of public interest especially as to how it was allowed to happen in the first place, why the crime was covered up and what precautions have been taken to avoid a similar fraud occurring again.

I challenge your answers to the following questions from my original FOI request.

Q1:- I challenge your refusal on the grounds it is in the public interest and the police investigation is now closed.

Q2:- This should have been answered under the Local Government Transparency Code.

Q3, 4 & 5:- I challenge your refusal on the grounds it is in the public interest and the police investigation is now closed.

Q6:- You will by now know the extra cost of the insurance premium, please advise what this is.

Q7:- I challenge your refusal on the grounds it is in the public interest and the police investigation is now closed.

Q8:- Your answer indicates that the whistleblower did not express his dissatisfaction on the Council’s cover up of the fraud. Would this be a true interpretation of your answer?

Q9:- There are no minutes available to the general public on the link provided therefore your answer is incorrect; can I have the truth please?

Q10:- If no meeting was held how were the 19 senior Members informed, by telephone, e.mail or any other means such as jungle drums?

Q11:- I accept your answer but in view of the fraud and sums of money involved the way in which the Council informed only 1/3 of Members is illegal, undemocratic, not open and transparent and fundamentally a cover up from the vast majority of Members.

Q12:- You have not answered this question but let me remind you that I asked you if Diane James, the Leader of the Opposition, was informed of the fraud. A yes or no would have been sufficient rather than the convoluted diversion you submitted.

Q13:- I challenge your refusal on the grounds it is in the public interest and the police investigation is now closed.

Q14:- There is no record of the fraud being discussed in the minutes referred to.

Q15:- The Mayor shut down questions on the grounds that there was on ongoing police enquiry, which was totally irrelevant to the question being asked. This is a matter of your own public records, I was not asking for your opinion I simply wanted you to confirm what actually happened, which you have failed to do.

Q16:- I challenge your refusal on the grounds it is in the public interest and the police investigation is now closed.

Q17:- I challenge your refusal on the grounds it is in the public interest and the police investigation is now closed.

Q18:- I challenge your refusal on the grounds it is in the public interest and the police investigation is now closed.

Yours Faithfully,

B F A Egan

Well – perhaps one day we will actually extract the truth! That the Conservative controlled council buried the information long enough not to affect the way we voted. Perhaps it is time for a re-run of the May 2015 Elections!

HERE WE GO, HERE WE GO, HERE WE GO… AGAIN!

The WW was at the Farnham Town Council Meeting,  but instead of reporting it ourselves  we have let our own  resident/s have their say… Oh and if anyone wonders where we were – we were sitting near the back in a mask, and cape…looking a bit like this really 

Screen Shot 2016-03-26 at 21.55.28

WW

So HERE WE GO AGAIN  in Farnham with the annual ritual of the Town Council Meeting for residents but no elephant in the room under the twinkling chandeliers of the Bush Hotel’s conference room?

No need for an  elephant,  Farnham has its own monster looming over the town and threatening to trample  over the will,  wishes and good sense  of its protesting citizens.

We have East Street,  Brightwells Development Scheme, which has  loomed large for so long that some people had almost ceased to believe it was real. But after 15 weary years, the alien creature is getting  off its knees and showing worrying signs of life.

After a restless crowd had listened  in  polite silence to  a beaming  Pat Frost, so happy to have been Mayor in this lovely town, and  the usual procession of worthy councillors reporting on the flowers and festivals, cemeteries and allotments. Came the crunch.

Everyone knew why, just like all previous years, the room was full of undercurrents, a mumbling grumbling presence and the reason that most of the Farnham Folk had made the effort to turn out on a wet Thursday evening. They’d come to have their say about the monster.

And a new presence filled the room, knowledge of the shock revelations that very day on the Waverley Web, that excellent source of news for Waverley  people, and the only way that they learn the truth about the dirty dealings going on behind closed doors.

WW says, “The shock and  anger was palpable. Residents fumed, the air was combustable -and at one point we thought it would implode!”

Screen Shot 2016-03-26 at 21.46.03.png

But who was going to let that go when all around resolutions were being made to check the alibi, sift out the facts and take it to the top. Surrey Pensions Committee Chairman and Waverley and Surrey Councillor, Denise Le Gal, has a lot more questions to answer. They all know in Farnham that the scheme has been rejected over the years as an investment by reputable city institutions so what does ‘Denise the Girl’ know that wiser men than her have been unable to discover. You said it – it’s a rum business.

Another big question had to be about that doomed daft Local Plan:

“In the context of Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan, residents were  told that Waverley BC  was commissioning a thorough professional report of traffic around the town conducted by Mott Macdonald in the same way that  a review had been commissioned and completed in respect of the development  proposed for 1800 new homes  at Dunsfold Park.

As we have heard recently that the new homes allocation for Farnham in Waverley’s Local Plan is to be increased to 3000 (yes, that’s right, 3000), it obviously becomes ever more crucial that a full-scale traffic review for Farnham is completed urgently and before the Local Plan is put the Inspectorate for Examination. If this is not done it will be impossible to adjudicate on whether the 3,000 figure is  sustainable. We would then be left with another failed Plan and a continuing invitation to  developers to despoil  green fields.

Please would a member of the Town Council’s Neighbourhood Plan team tell us what they know about the progress or otherwise of the traffic review and give assurances  that they will press Waverley for completion of the LP – as a matter of urgency?” A roar of approval  and an  enthusiastic round of applause followed. People wanted  answers  but there were none.

Even Carole Cockburn  lead Councillor for Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan, was being kept in the dark by Waverley Planners. A promise was made to press for action so we will watch and wait. What choice do residents have in the face of the absolute, secretive and undemocratic power exercised by Waverley?

And finally, what must have been the highlight of the evening. An initiative from ex-Farnham Councillor, David Beaman, a councillor who always did an excellent job for the town and his electorate until he was unfairly given the heave-ho by a combination of bad luck and political manoeuvring. He put forward a resolution asking the audience to vote for their Town Council to support the Farnham Interest Group in taking legal action against WBC/CNS to stop the iniquitous use of a variation of planning permission to get round proper procedures for that Brightwells Scheme. (Full text to follow)

Residents voted resoundingly for the motion so now  Iain Lynch, the Farnham Town Clerk, Ian Lynch has the task of asking Town Councillors to obey the will of the people.

Just in case anyone forgets here it is:

RESOLUTION TO BE PRESENTED AT ANNUAL MEETING OF ELECTORS OF FARNHAM TOWN COUNCIL HELD ON THURSDAY 24th MARCH 2016

Farnham Town Council (FTC) has consistently expressed its desire for an alternative development of the East Street site and has objected to a number of applications to implement and vary the present planning permission granted for this site. Members will also be aware that doubts have been cast on the legality of the existing planning permission and each application to vary the existing planning permission has been subject to close scrutiny by the Farnham Interest Group (FIG). Following the latest application to vary the planning permission (WA/2016/0268) FIG has written to WBC and every individual WBC councillor warning that the proposed variation is illegal and that if pursued legal action could follow. I therefore wish to propose that should FTC also object to the proposed application on the same grounds as FIG, electors at this meeting resolve that FTC should support a public appeal to raise funds to cover the costs of any legal action that may ensue.

Farnham is clearly not in the mood to give way to its monster, its bete noir. So watch out Waverley Council the people of Farnham  are in a fighting mood!

Are the residents of Waverley waking up at last?

Here at WW we get numerous comments and e-mails from residents concerned about all things Waverley.

However, for some time the contributors behind this blog were concerned – in fact, very concerned, that residents were sleepwalking through a  dream that when they woke up  may  become their worst  nightmare.

Whilst Waverley Borough Council has spent the past three years literally “fiddling” with its Daft Local Plan. Now due to its incompetent handling, leaving the borough wide open to assault from developers, the very character of its towns and villages could be  about to burn.

However, we at the WWeb are heartened by the comments  we have received in recent weeks.  We  have tried to play our part with our colleagues in the media, in a “wake-up call” by highlighting just some of the issues that are  about to impact on us all. The Waverley Web is the only medium that is covering the whole of Waverley, and we believe it is right that Farnham people know what is going on in Godalming, Haslemere and in the East of the borough and the other way around.  We have heard from people in the Cranleigh area, totally unaware of the 15/20 year East Street debacle in Farnham, and from people in Farnham and Godalming shocked at the pressure being put on the Cranleigh/Dunsfold/Alfold villages.

Utter disgust has been expressed at Waverley Council’s decision to spend £1m of our money on its own little dip into the development pot by joining  with a developer to create a £10m industrial park on the Green Belt in Guildford Road, Cranleigh, adjoining Mansfield Park. Who will give the scheme approval – yes – you get it – Waverley Planners!

Even worse, this disreputable council’s Leader had denied it claiming it is  as a scurrilous rumour! Councillor Robert Knowless – who knows more than he is willing to admit –  should never have been given the luxury of being  replaced – he should resign – Now!

The Waverley Web has the confidential council papers, maps and plans and can produce them – and just in case you wonder where they came from it was from “inside” the council – and not from one of your dishonourable disreputable councillors. Most of whom voted for it!  There are still some decent people working “inside” Waverley – Thank God!

Here’s just a small sample of what our followers  told us during  our 21,000 hits in just a few months:

“My Wife told me this morning it seems that people are so concerned with what is happeneing in Waverley the coffee, cake and knitting sisterhood are talking. I had already drafted a message to you to propose a public protest to stop the lack of sustainable development.”

“Publicity would be a multiplier of the impact.”

“Any ideas – we want to fund posters, leaflets and make our voices heard.” Some route from the Pepperpot to the Council Offices….perhaps?

“Are there any kindred spirits out there?”

“Do you think the time has come for us to take a vote of no confidence in the leaders of Waverley Borough Council.” How do we do it?

“You are doing a great job WW.”

I was shocked to read about the Farnham East street Development- it is shocking and rubbish – Do you not think if ALL of us in Waverley got together – We could be more powerful? I can’t help thinking I upset you, as you are Farnham/Cranleigh – I am Alfold/Dunsfold….. If we all worked together – we could be so powerful – If we pull apart because of our own local preferences – then we are stuffed! – It is stupid – But I felt I couldn’t Object as it is so outside of my boundary – that is wrong isn’t it??

“It is only an “ask” But I can’t help feeling that by us having a Divide we are reducing our capacity to really make a difference.”

“I want all unsustainable Development to be stopped whether in Cranleigh/Ewhurst /Dunsfold – or Farnham – It’s just Farnham – have not been very nice to us here…and have not improved relations between the Towns and Villages – there is now an Us & Them and there shouldn’t be – we should all support each other against this bunch of (can’t say the word) at WBC and the Developers – who like Vultures are making the most of this

“I don’t always agree with you – But I really appreciate the information you provide and hope that you continue to do so”

“we are all too – up our own “Back-gardens” so see what is going on down the road!”

“It needs  someone to sort out Waverley and the Brightwell’s applications with a mask and cape (gown optional) to enforce honesty, transparency and justice. It would be very much appreciated. It would also be nice to see the individuals at Waverley carted off to a remote island prison, I could go on !!

“One of our key concerns is the lack of Public oversight of the decision making processes used by Councillors and Council Officers. This lack of oversight combined with institutional opaqueness has led to more opportunities for incompetence and corruption to bloom.”

Happy Birthday to the CCS -and full marks for putting the “Care”back into Cranleigh.

CRANLEIGH CIVIC SOCIETY

Screen Shot 2016-03-26 at 10.51.29.png

 

Regular readers of the Waverley Web will have seen it has frequently  used articles and photographs from the Cranleigh Civic Society Website.  Along with others  from the Farnham Society and other Community Groups – all of whom are doing everything in they power to protect the areas they serve and which are under threat from development like never before!

If you live in or around Cranleigh support this local group which has worked tirelessly over the past year to protect your interests   join us in wishing the Cranleigh Civic Society and its members a very Happy First Anniversary and every success in everything they do on your behalf in the future!

Cranleigh Civic Society has existed for just over twelve months and it says, “what a year it has been”

 Formed by a group of concerned local people it has gone on to achieve some huge successes and is now  recognised by such high ranking people as Her Majesty’s Planning Inspectorate.

It was actively involved in the Berkeley Homes appeal (425 houses south of Cranleigh High Street. ) It was an official contributor; and its  evidence pack highlighted flooding and sustainability issues was accepted by the Planning Inspector.  It has put the spotlight  on the  flood risk on other development sites, and  discovered biodiversity studies that had been carried out incorrectly. It was applauded by villagers when it  uncovered huge sewage issues that had  been either overlooked, or ignored, and has drawn the attention of decision makers to  the very obvious inability of Cranleigh’s poor road infrastructure to cope.

 It was involved with the Cranleigh Conservation Area Review in the High Street, has and continues to protect the Beryl Harvey allotments and conservation field, the Elmbridge Road Campaign, to name but a few.  The list of its achievements is endless.

 The Society was formed as a direct result of  residents’  distress at the huge number of new homes that Waverley Borough Council indicated it intended   to see built in and around Cranleigh.  This housing is not in response to “local” housing need and is far more than its  fair share of the total number Waverley claims are  required across the borough.

The disproportionate number villagers say they are being told to accept is, it believes,  driven by the  lack of protection from Green Belt and other landscape designations such as AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). 

The CCS believes Cranleigh is seen as an easy target with its green fields ripe for picking.

NOT to provide affordable housing in response to local need, but to deliver maximum profits to developers and solve a borough- wide  problem. It is recognised that “housing need” is NOT concentrated in this part of the Borough, however Waverley’s plan is to dump it here anyway!

The CCS says, Waverley is not looking anywhere else in the borough other than Cranleigh and the surrounding area to put thousands  of new houses. 

Since  Berkeley Homes lodged its appeal, NO significant applications have been put forward to the Joint Planning Committee at Waverley.  It appears that Waverley is waiting for the result of that  appeal, expected on or before the 8 April, and which if granted, lets them once again, literally  open the flood gates in and around Cranleigh. 

The minimum number of houses planned by Waverley for Cranleigh village is 1,500, it could be many more.  That’s 3,600 more residents with 3,000 more cars on the roads and a minimum of 6,000 additional traffic movements per day.

Significant developments have already been approved.  Some 58 new homes on the old Swallow Tiles site, 19, Cranleigh Brick & Tile, 125 houses on Amlets Lane, and 149 houses off the Horsham Road.  The Hewitts application for 120 houses is also currently at appeal.  That’s 452 new houses in total, with 274 of these already on green fields. 

Says the Society – Almost every week  even more proposals for development on  green fields are lodged and even schemes mooted on our Green Belt!

If you care about Cranleigh join the Civic Society and help it fight for transparency and fairness for our village.

Help it make a difference

Join The Cranleigh Civc Society Today

http://www.cranleighsociety.org/join-us/

You can also keep up to date with us on Facebook and Twitter:

www.facebook.com/cranleighsociety                              @CranleighSoc

 

 

 

Devious Dutchman strikes again!

Well there we are then! – The Elmbridge Village Ltd has written to Waverley backing the Knowle Park Initiative’s plans to build 265 houses on the West Cranleigh Nurseries site in Alfold Road, Cranleigh.

The Cloggie who produces salad crops to help feed the nation and who employees local people, wants to ditch food production in favour of house production – and stops at nothing to persuade the locals – including a few of his borough council mates that have called the application in to the JPC. Now he and his fellow cohorts have persuaded the organisation that runs a retirement village to back his plans to ditch the tomatoes to make a few guilders.

Sing-a-long with…Abba…Guilders,Guilders, Guilders.

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 23.10.00

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 11.57.17

From the Surrey Advertiser

Did the Company ask the over residents’ before they spoke up for them?  NO! Some of them say they are fuming, as they were not  even consulted by Elmbridge Village Ltd. Formerly Elmbridge Retirement Homes.

Would it have anything to do with the fact, as revealed by one elderly resident of EV in Elmbridge Road, that residents had been offered a path/road/accessway from their homes

…across the fields and the Cranleigh /Waters, …across the former West Cranleigh Nurseries, …across The Alfold Road, …across the Knowle Park, … across Knowle Lane …across the Snoxhall Fields and …acccording to James Puckering on behalf of Elmbridge Village Limited “a safe access into Cranleigh High Street.”Just a few little old miles away.

WWethinks the poor old souls will be in need a cuppa tea and a lie down by the time they get there!

Ye Gods – will the  Flying Dutchman stop at nothing? Perhaps he will offer everyone wings next?

Will he be supplying the residents with motor scooters – we have already heard from a former Cycle Supplier that the devious Dutchman offered to buy dozens of bikes from him, if he supported his cunning development plan.

So perhaps its – get on your bikes girls and boys at the Retirement village, and peddle whilst you piddle through the winter floodwater on your two mile run to the shops! After all back home in Clog Country – they do it all the time.  When the restoration begin on the next stretch of the Wey and Arun Canal- you will even have your own canal to leap over, and it will feel just like Amsterdam!

We have also heard from many other villagers over there  of the coercion that is going on to get the Knowle Park Initiative “home and wet”  before the earth movers get on site to build 125 Cala Homes next door to the Cloggie in Amlets Lane. According to his neighbours and the developer  he is furious that his numerous  offers to buy the land were turned down, and another developer got in first  with permission to build  125 new houses. Getting a development of his very own would help soften the blow! Ah well-that’s life – sh** happens! 

 

Surprise, surprise – East Street funder in place! Guess Who?

Sing-a-long with Our Cilla.

Screen Shot 2016-03-21 at 17.48.03.png

Click here to Read article from Farnham Herald. East street pdf copy

The Waverley Web has been doing a little research to determine  the identity of the  funder  behind the notorious Farnham East Street development, sometimes described by the locals as Farnham’s Nightmare!

Well we may be putting two and two together and making five – but WW believes Waverley Borough Council is joining forces with none other than –  

Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 14.17.48.png 

Either on its own or in collaboration with “others” it is believed Surrey County Council  is jumping into bed with… “YOUR WAVERLEY”/Crest Nicholson & Co and Sainsburys’ to get what some Farnham folk are calling – 

‘A VERY SHABBY DEAL FOR THE TOWN’  to finally get off the ground!

Is Surrey County Council really, yes really, the only organisation prepared to join our dodgey local council in the scam of the century called East Street? Well it would appear so…and…

who better to have in the driving seat than the Chairman of Surrey County Council’s Pension Fund, Councillor Denise Le Gal, Waverley Borough Councillor for Farnham Hale and Heath End,  Surrey County Councillor for Farnham North. She is also Chairman of SW Surrey Conservative Association, which  in its spare time runs Waverley!

 Her Deputy is Councillor Alan Young the Surrey County Councillor for Cranleigh and Ewhurst, currently turning up in Farnham saying he  is – “doing a little local networking.” We bet he is! Been doing quite a bit of that lately so much so that rumour has it that Guildford Conservative Association is doing its utmost to kick him out!  Not to be outwitted  he is looking to take up his wife’s SCC seat as the member for the Waverley Eastern Villages, in the neighbouring Constituency.  With a fine reputation for holding secret meetings with developers’ over there, coming over here to Farnham should suit him down to the ground!

As for Councillor Le Gal, as the current WBC councillor  for,  Farnham Hale & Heath End  we have peeped  into her  attendance record, which is not exactly something to boast about!

From 28/09/15 to 22/03/16 – she had a 70% absence rate.

How’s that for a record of service to your electorate? How much of this time did she spend instead playing with investments in the SCC Pension Fund, as its Chairman? 

In February 2014, yes two years ago,  Waverley  Council said the East Street scheme was fully funded and shovel ready!  However, since then   – all has been quiet on the Western Front! Now numerous new what it claims are, “minor revisions” to planning applications have been lodged, and there are  very serious concerns about their legality (Read the Farnham Herald article above.)  Farnham residents are now  calling  for a Judicial Review. Wow – that really would put the cat among the pigeons – or the Tom Tits – (new deputy leader Tom Martin) and his new lady  in waiting – Gone to – Potts?

Perhaps the time has now come for Farnham Town Council to stand up and be counted and seek  its own legal advice before it is too late. After all if it doesn’t, what exactly is it there for?

Pity really that it is full of Waverley Borough Councillors . When  will the electorate of our towns and villages learn! No checks, no balances, no democracy!

However its Mayor Waverley Borough Councillor Pat the Jack Frost, has told everyone it is a matter for Waverley Borough Council and not Farnham Town Council – so in other words but out of our affairs –  arrogant or what!

So there you are then – Surrey County Council knows a good deal when it sees one…doesn’t it?

Always happy to hear confirmation or a denial of this post from either Waverley BC or SCC here: 

But WW is not holding its breath!

SAVED! The green, green grass of home.

Screen Shot 2016-03-22 at 21.45.30.png

That’s what The Daily Telegraph says.

 

Screen Shot 2016-03-22 at 21.46.22.png

Councillor Mary Foryszewski said it was another “ground hog day” where we are faced with  yet another unsuitable development on a green field, which would urbanise a lovely  village and upset its residents.  

Screen Shot 2015-12-19 at 17.50.59.png

Councillor Mary Foryszewski who said yet another application on greenfield was another “ground hog day.”

 

There we were – Oh Waverley Web of little faith! – thinking that yet another Green Field in the East of the borough over there in Ewhurst was about to bite the dust – and then, would you Adam and Eve it… it was REFUSED by 16 votes to two – by Waverley’s Joint Planning committee.

After the severe drubbing it was given for approving 51 houses on a green field in the little village of Alfold just two weeks ago, it would have been a brave, a very brave, committee to have incurred the wrath of  Ewhurst people too.

Sing along with Mary – a campaigner against building on green fields.

 In the face of strong support from  WBC planning officers’ led by its newly appointed  Chief Planning Officer Elizabeth Sims. (Shame on you Liz, and you in your  first week in your new job, and your colleagues, all  determined to see another green field go under concrete – doesn’t say much for the boroughs future under your leadership does it?)

However, there  were no holds barred when  Miller Homes’ application to build on fields behind Backward Point, Cranleigh Road, Ewhurst, went before the committee last night!

Almost to a man and a woman, councillors came out  guns a’ablazing to oppose the development. Despite officers’   advice that it was a “sustainable site” close to the village, with good transport links, and advice from Surrey County Council Highways “experts,” that the access onto the Cranleigh Road and the access road to the site behind were safe.

This was rubbished by almost everyone – including Bypass Byham (Con, Bramley,) who only a couple of weeks earlier was perfectly happy to grant 51 homes on the dangerous Loxwood Road, in Alfold adjacent to a dangerous bend where a ~Loxwood family, including two children, died!  Where there is no school, no transport links, and not much of anything really!

He called the Ewhurst access,  “bizarre,” and the Cranleigh HGV expert Stewart Stennett sited  a dozen reasons why the access would not work. “If a refuse truck travelling  from Cranleigh had to drive into that access road it could not do so without crossing to the other side of the road, which it must not do” he warned his colleagues.

Councillor Mary Foryweski (Con Cranleigh East) said the scheme was,

Unimaginative, SHE doubted whether it was viable, the density was too high on yet “another” green field, that would urbanise a lovely village. “I know some of us are getting a bit of a reputation for being anti-development, but we are not, but we are constantly faced with this type of  boring development on green fields and it is becoming very – “BORING”

Councillor Carole Cockburn (Con Farnham) agreed. “Ewhurst is a beautiful village and urbanisation is the one thing this  pretty village just does not need.” To build on this tranquil site would be a step too far.” 

The local member Councillor Val Henry said – building on a Green Lung adjacent to the Ewhurst Recreation Ground would be wrong. The density – twice that of surrounding properties – was too high, the access unsuitable, and the roads within the development too narrow. Others echoed her concerns, and took issue with the Highway Authority’s support for the scheme. However, they were warned by Officer Sims – not to challenge the opinion of the experts! 

Others claimed that a similar – but much smaller application for 13 houses on the same site had been recommended for refusal by officers, and councillors claimed the advice they were now being given was,  “inconsistent.”

So…the desecration of a green field site has been avoided … but for how long? With no Daft Local Plan, a new Chief Planning Officer determined to support development on green fields, even though the application was introduced by an officer saying it was the Council’s “strongly ” preferred policy that future housing should be built on brown field sites rather than green fields, – they then proceeded to recommend approval!  Why! Because WBC’s cannot demonstrate that it has  a five year land supply!

Well! Get one then! – on all the brownfield sites you have that you have in Waverley Ms Sims – or you will have more than angry folk here in Farnham in the West and Cranleigh in the East to contend with!

 

 

 

 

Could it now be Ewhurst’s turn to face the bulldozers?

LET’S HOPE THEY HAVE BETTER  LUCK IN EWHURST THAN THEY DID IN ALFOLD?

Following the unpopular decision by Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee to grant permission for 55 houses in Alfold just a week ago…

…read hereTen out of Ten for Trying Councillor Deanus!

TONIGHT,Tuesday, the very same committee will be considering an application by Millbrook Homes for 31 homes on a green field site behind  Backward Point, Cranleigh Road, Ewhurst.

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.23.16.png

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.23.45.png

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.22.08.png

Well there you are then  – if you cannot be bothered to read all the reasons why Waverley Council want another green field to be  built on and why the officers’  have made a recommendation to councillors that it should be approved  – here they are in a nutshell :

  • No objection from WBC planning “experts” because they have No Local Plan and No five year housing land supply.
  • No objection from Surrey County Council’s Highway Authority!
  • No objection from Thames Water – despite there being a very real problem at the Cranleigh Sewerage Works.
  • No objection from a variety of other statutory agencies.
  • No Objection from the Environmental Health Dept of WBC.

However…

There is plenty of objection from the Locals almost 90 at publication of this post – including the village leaders at Ewhurst Parish Council. This is what it said…

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 13.16.09.png

 

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.29.41

However the bungs from the developers’ are as follows:

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.42.19.pngScreen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.38.49.pngScreen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.37.43.pngScreen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.37.02.pngScreen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.36.11.pngScreen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.35.02.png

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.34.20.png

So there you are then … Officers’ recommendation to grant permission, backed by the highway authority – here are the people you need to write to …and quick! Otherwise another green field could bite the dust?

Screen Shot 2016-03-16 at 12.21.39.png