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.”
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.
Is this the same Mary that wants to concrete over the Springbok estate?
Ooooh, bit or research after the above post reveals a dark side or St Mary of Cranleigh (the only thing worthy of a dark side is a chocolate digestive). Can Waverley Web get its teeth into an expose and unearth this duplicitous behaviour ?
Why do our elected officials think that normal standards of decent people don’t apply to them? Let’s have an end to ‘secret meetings’ or holier than tho morals when it would appear they say one thing but do another!
Having a pecuniary interest ( declared or not ????) is not the same as NOT HAVING YOUR FINGER IN THE PIE IN THE FIRST PLACE
Perhaps St Mary should climb off her high horse and explain why it’s ok for her to be involved in building hundreds of houses on green belt but not for anyone else!
Britain has a rich history of maritime achievements, so who does a maritime based charity look to for a trustee? The First Sea Lord? Ellen MacArthur? sir Robin Cox? No, someone with a dog business, who just happens to be a parish councillor, who just happens to sit on planning and then low and behold in goes a plan for 400+ houses. 65 million people in the Uk, so I’m sure that’s all just coincidence.
WW is not entirely sure that is a fact. She has declared an interest and will not be voting on anything proposed at Springbok, or so we understand. WW does not believe Springbok will be going ahead – it is certainly not included in the Draft Local Plan, perhaps someone out there should telephone the planning department and ask when is it being considered? WW
I think the point is declaring an interest is not the same as a councillor who sits on planning being involved with developers plans in any way shape or form. Then to hold the high horse with other developments is beyond belief !
Has she declared an interest, we’ve not seen it anywhere? But if so she will not be able to vote but hasn’t stopped it being promoted on every occasion possible with the rest of the committee. On that basis she should not be able to influence any joint planning decisions and should not be taking part in any Joint Planning Committee because of the prejudicial intent.