What is it with some of our County Councillors in Waverley?

As the Conservative Associations get to grips with selecting their new, or maybe…existing county councillors…dare we suggest they make a few changes!

Perish the thought that the Waverley Web could be accused of interfering in the stuff of other people’s lives… what us… never! But…

Farnham’s Denise “the girl” –  Gal – has been busy cooking up a little financial deal and swopping her county council hat for her Waverley Borough hat with monotonous regularity. She has played  her cards so close to her ample chest that even some of her county council colleagues didn’t know about a county council £58m  partnership with Waverley  to fund Farnham’s  East Street’s Brightwells scheme – a scheme that the commercial world wouldn’t touch with a bargepole!

Oh, but course she won’t be going anywhere, will she because she’s head honcho at SW Surrey Conservative Association? So no doubt she will select herself?Screen Shot 2016-06-15 at 12.01.49

She believes people dislike and her because she is Canadian, rubbish we in Waverley love The Mounties, and Maple Syrup, no,  it is much more to do with what she is doing to “our Waverley.”  WW  wonders… is she the right person to represent Farnham Hale & Heath End ?  We hear  she spends so much of her time cooking up financial deals, not meals, that she isn’t seen at Waverley that often these days… well I suppose it is a bit parochial for her when she has much bigger fish to fry and wants to pursue her passionate obsession with developers.

We also understand that now Carole Cockburn who has been a bit outspoken at “Your Waverley” recently, has been put on the naughty step and has been turned down for David Munro’s Farnham SCC seat in favour of Wyatt Ramsdale. Oh Carole!

Over in the East of the borough it too  we hear that it to has a little local problem with selecting its county council candidate. As  Alan “of the secret meeting fame” Young who is so keen to get developers to work together that he rings them up and asks them! He is  hell bent  on creating Cranleigh New Town – 750 in the pot and many more to come and is making himself unpopular into the bargain. He  is leaning heavily on his local Conservative branch to select him – “or else.” Apparently they won’t and has  passed the poisoned chalice to Guildford Conservative Association?

He is ably supported by the local paper who will turn out a photographer to watch Councillor Young pick  a rose, his nose, or spout his prose and the local jokers say he will turn up for the opening of an envelope.

His latest little exercise to get his mug shot,  was a meeting to consider such issues as flooding – would you Adam and Eve it from the man who has helped bring about mass building in the area he is supposed to represent. Such hypocrisy knows no bounds.: Young

He should log onto the Cranleigh Society website and watch the video  of flooding in Knowle Lane, Cranleigh after a shower on Saturday? www.cranleighsociety.org

And…why we wonder is Councillor Young buying his Tory colleagues gifts of the rather large kind…and it isn’t a meal on wheels?

Perhaps our Annie should be dipping into the pot at Guildford Conservative Association and finding someone decent to do the job, even though according to the locals  he is really ready, willing and waiting to fill Our Jeremy’s shoes? Oh dear! Aspirations are very high then, does he know something we don’t?

And then of course there is Councillor David Munro who has moved on to much bigger things – pledged to vacate his seat at county and borough? As Police and Crime Commissioner he has plenty to contend with and has a conflict of interests if he stays in all his old jobs…doesn’t he?

However, lets give him his due, he did say he would not pay himself the controversial
increase in members’ allowances and  instead donated the money to charity.Screen Shot 2016-06-15 at 12.09.20.png

The SCC for Farnham South  waded into at bitter row, saying the 20% increase in the remuneration he receives for his duties as council chairman was not justified. Perhaps he might do the same with his  £70,000  plus expenses as police and Crime Commissioner?

 

Dunsfold homes decision delayed?

This cannot be true – can it?

13417636_10154242447186613_7480553671838155184_n.jpg

 

Considering one of the largest planning applications in the borough during the Silly Season when most of the country is on holiday, not really, surely not?

Well dafter things have happened. WW can recollect many important decisions/consultations being made and conducted during  past Summer  and the Christmas holidays.  However, with the Draft Local Plan now published including provision for 2,600 houses on the brownfield British Aerospace site at Dunsfold Park , perhaps it is all over bar the shouting?

Or

Perhaps someone, somewhere will have the good sense to consider the application in September, by which time there is half a chance the webcast may be working so that maybe the residents of Waverley who have passing interest in what is going on around them, may be able to listen to the debate? Click here to read the Haslemere Herald 16.06.23 – Dunsfold, Not if but how many

Complaining to a brick wall?

Cover up, Cover up and more Cover up – for God’s sake Waverley come clean about  your mistakes, we all make them, apologise for your duplicity and your crass temp to cover it up and let this poor soul live in peace!

 What does “Your Waverley” do when a resident frustrates it to hell by insisting on having a genuine complaint dealt with… properly?   They just erect a great big brick wall…

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 20.15.42.png
The Great Wall of Waverley?

frustrates the hell out of them until they give up…

however, not everyone  gives up. Go for it Brian Egan progress your complaint from the Monitoring Officer to Wen-am-I leaving, and whoever  else up the chain, down the chain, but not down the pan?

After all the Monitoring Officer Robin Pellow is leaving  because according to his colleagues, he is sick to the gills with doing Waverley’s dirty work! and covering up its mistakes!

This is the latest fobbing off  received by  our Blind friend Brian Egan from Milford who can see behind the brick wall erected   by “Your Waverley” – bet they wished they never called the newsletter/propaganda sheet that! – when it covered up a quarter of a million pound fraud, to prevent  it interfering with the May 2015 elections.

All the man wants is the matter dealt with Independently by someone outside your devious little coven, and if they deem you have acted properly, then so be it?

Dear Mr Egan

Thank you for your letter received by email on 9 June 2016.

While I note and respect your view that the Council should employ an independent investigator to review your concerns under Level 3 of the Council’s complaints procedure, I am afraid that our complaints procedure does not allow for such an approach to be taken in investigating your continuing concerns.

WW. Of course it doesn’t, what on earth would make us all think you do! Your Waverley only has to hear the word “Independent” and it starts to hyperventilate! Whether it is councillors or complaints the word Independent is an anathema. Just in case you rdon’t ecognise the word:

Something or someone that one vehemently dislikes  is  abhorrent, hateful, odious, repugnant, repellent, offensive. 

I have already explained in my previous email how you can progress your complaint to Level 3, and once you have completed this next step, you can then raise your concerns with the Local Government Ombudsman if you remain unhappy with the Council’s response to your complaint.

Yours sincerely
Peter Vickers
Head of Finance
Tel: 01483 523539
Email: peter.vickers@waverley.gov.uk  Perhaps the whole of Waverley should drop him an e-mail?

Mr Egan’s response Thank you for your letter received by e.mail on 10th June.

 An elected member has advised me that Waverley have comprehensively reviewed the Complaints Policy and therefore I have tried to obtain an updated copy of same from your website, however the only copies I have been able to retrieve are exactly the same as those I obtained during December 2014 and which were subsequently published in my Report of Events Leading to Complaints Against Waverley Borough Council. If your website is out of date and the Policy has been changed from my published version perhaps you would be good enough to arrange for a full up to date copy to be sent to me and if possible highlight where you consider that you have complied with any new policies that overrule those conditions I have previously referred to.

 As you have not justified that you are qualified to conduct an investigation under level 2 of the Complaints Procedure I must correct you by emphasising that I do not believe that not only level 3 but also level 2, in this instance, can be conducted in the way you insist as it does not comply with the version of Annexe 2 of the Complaints Policy that I have. However, should you attempt to convince me that you had no involvement in the presentation of the Accounts which covered up details that a fraud had taken place in April 2014, this position may change.

 In the interest of fairness and impartiality I am prepared to consider your investigation notes on those enquiries that brought you to the conclusion that my allegations of maladministration, corruption and cover up by those accused are unfounded, therefore would you please send me a copy of your investigation notes.

In the meantime I am investigating the possibilities of taking my complaint direct to the LGO and if this is not possible I shall be looking at any other way in which I can chastise the contumacious officers. BE.

Then he gets the bums rush from The Monitoring Officer and then…Egan decision letter

Then it’s Our Jeremy’s turn…
From: HUNT, Jeremy <jeremy.hunt.mp@parliament.uk>
Sent: 21 June 2016 10:24
To: RosaleenEgan_4@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: RE:

Dear Mr Egan

Thank you for your recent emails.

Generally, the complaints procedure within councils has to be exhausted before further action can be taken. Once the internal complaints mechanisms have been completed and if you remain unhappy after the final stage of a complaints procedure you can then take your complaint to the LGO. As you know, the LGO has to give a council a reasonable chance to consider a complaint. However, if you believe the LGO will not investigate the case and you are considering County Court or High Court action you would need to seek legal advice.

Best wishes

Jeremy Hunt

Would any of us want to complain about anything Waverley Council does or doesn’t do! We here at the Waverley Web would rather rip our hair out from the roots, well the bits we have left!  On second thoughts – that is exactly why this blog was set up in the first place! And…why after just a few months it has received over  34,500 hits.  So please everyone support Mr Egan’s fight because one day it may be you?

and on and on…
Dear Mr Egan

Thank you for your letter received by email on 13 June 2016.

As requested, I attach a copy of the Council’s current complaints handling policy dated January 2016. The complaints policy is kept under continual review and since 2014 the following changes have been made to the policy:

· An increase in the timescale for responding to Level 2 and 3 complaint from 10 to 15 working days;
· A link to the Council’s stand-alone policy on dealing with unreasonably persistent and unreasonable complaints; and
· The inclusion of more detailed advice on the issues to bear in mind when considering whether to pay financial compensation to complainants.

As I have already mentioned in my previous correspondence on your complaint, if you are unhappy with my response under Level 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure you can ask our Executive Director to review your concerns under Level 3 of the procedure.

and so it goes on…and on…

See no evil, hear no evil, are “almost secret meetings” becoming commonplace?

See for yourself:

https://youtu.be/bj6Cj_d3cSk

In the public interest it is incumbent  upon the Waverley Web to inform  residents  that  “secret meetings” are now commonplace at “Your Waverley.”

Screen Shot 2016-06-25 at 23.14.29.png
Giving the video feed the chop?

During recent months meetings such as the Joint Planning Committee on 16 May, Eastern Planning Committee on June 15, the Joint Overview & Scrutiny Committee 22 June, and others, where the deliberations of “Your Waverley” were either not webcast at all, or only  in part, or the sound was operating with no video, or the video was working with no sound!

 Most  of us are fully aware the decision making is made, in private in the committee rooms of Waverley Towers, and then confirmed in the council chamber. Or, are considered when the press and public are excluded when reports are buried in the Confidential Pink papers  for  a variety of spurious reasons  known only to the Council’s Officers and Executive.  But at least some lip service should be shown for the council’s pledge for openness and transparency by webcasting some of its activities, shouldn’t it?  

Earlier in the year the council apologised for the lack of video on the webcast, due to technical difficulties.

Last week it apologised again and promised that the recording of  the debate, on the controversial £100m Brightwells East Street development in Farnham, which could not be filmed due to “technical difficulties,” would be put up on Friday. It wasn’t! Why? We also wonder if the video’s are being doctored? Perish the thought that we could be so cynical!

Do residents think the time has come to have a whip round to buy some new equipment? Or, are there more sinister reasons why the council sent the chap pictured above to snip through the wiring?

 

Two faced, duplicitous, disengenous, double dealing – or what?

And… aren’t they doing well. The  figure on the far left is Mary Foryszewski, who WW is quite sure would not want to be associated with the shady bunch pictured here – shortly before the May 2015 Elections to “Your Waverley.”

Screen Shot 2016-06-23 at 15.21.45.png
Believe it or not, this is the Cranleigh Conservatives election material from the May 2015 Election!

However, if you don’t believe us – watch the Joint Planning Committee Meeting held on  May 16 2016 – which has only just been posted up on the council website.

Don’t give up… however bored you are at the repetitive meanderings of the speaker, at least not before you have heard what Mary, Mary very Contrary has to say about her  colleague who is still bearing a chip as big as a shop for being demoted  from ruling the parish council  with a rod of iron. So much so that he resigned, along with the Stennett duo!  Why? Because they all wanted to build houses on a Memorial Conservation area and any other area they can find?

Click at the end of this blog  to hear what he really thinks of Cranleigh or as he puts it the“coffee shop village of Surrey,”  full of charity and other shops that need more footfall!

And he says, … won’t have a problem with traffic or drainage – because Surrey County Council highways and Thames Water say so!

The very same man who has, despite his and planning officers’ protestations to the contrary, (the gentleman doth protest too much)  that the “secret meetings” held with a raft of developers, most of whom now have their planning permissions for over 800 houses tucked under their ever increasing belts, was secret – he didn’t even tell his parish colleagues they were sitting around a table in the council offices which  according to Farnham councillor Carole Cockburn – “was divvying up Cranleigh” 

No wonder Mary F doesn’t think she lives in the same village or  planet – because Councillor Brian Ellis moved onto the planet Zonk a few years back and because of his actions – his words – not ours. “Cranleigh high street will become one long traffic jam, particularly when delivery lorries are in the high street.”

From what we hear from our followers, villagers in and around Cranleigh back Councillor Foryszewski to the hilt, – she has always claimed houses should be built on brownfield sites first and then, only if necessary, on Cranleigh’s green fields be sacrificed to concrete. She is the only honest truthful member of the whole damned bunch above.

Waverley has enough disengenuous  souls in Farnham, but even they believe they are doing the best for the town. However the Shady Bunch  of Jeannette Stennett who voted through 150 homes on green fields in Horsham Road, alongside which, Waverley’s Daft local Plan has now earmarked another 100, whilst her husband has been working up a scheme with Waverley officers and a developer (just happens to be the same developer  they  all supported for 75 in Alfold Road’s Little Meadow, featured  in the clip below  – to build an industrial estate on the Green Belt in Cranleigh! He  and Ellis both declared a pecuniary interest in the Knowle Park Initiative scheme for 265 houses, from which  Ellis  subsequently withdrew and inserted “prejudicial.” All in the knowledge this it had already been included in the Local Plan – devious or what??

Oh! and don’t forget they turned down the  only brownfield site in Cranleigh for 120 houses on the Hewitts industrial estate.  Though in secret papers which WW has seen, they claim they want 120 houses on the site so they can move the businesses  onto the new estate into which “Your Waverley” and your shady Cranleigh councillors with the exception of Councillor Mary, want to build with £1m of “Your Money” on  the Green Belt at Manfield Park.

If you want to listen to the whole meeting click on the first clip and lie the bar for Little Meadow or extract on the second clip.[wpvideo iDN8fOEN]

Contradictory or what?

Here’s the pdf file cranleighmar2015   and… here’s the comment from the follower who sent it!

Just noticed this interesting article which was I think before the secret meetings started. I don’t think for one minute that these councillors have taken into account the villagers views on all the development within the green belt around Cranleigh and surrounding areas, you certainly do not see them around Cranleigh engaging in conversation regarding this. Hollow words from shallow public officials supposedly working in the interest of the people that put them there.