Has “Your Waverley’s ” worst nightmare just come true?

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-20 at 08.23.45.png

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-20 at 08.24.26.png

Getting it “almost” wrong twice in two days is no fun for the Waverley Web, however, this time it brought a little smile to our face.

Because the people of  Farnham have spoken – in fact they have shouted – we do not want more of the same so … Times They are a Changing for “Your Waverley.”

By clicking on the link below  you will see the full results for the Farnham borough and Surrey county council elections but in  nutshell it was a resounding victory for Farnham Residents’ or dare  we  say Farnham’s New Conservatives?

In just one day the Opposition to Waverley’s Tory controlled council goes from Four to Seven with the Mayor of Farnham John Ward proving that you can shun your Tory masters and if you have the confidence of your  townsfolk you can still win. As he did in Farnham Shortheath & Boundstone.

But it will be the success of one Jerry Hyman in the Farnham Castle  Ward that will have rocked Waverley’s boat big time. And…as

Screen Shot 2016-08-19 at 14.46.43.png

And… as he spoke his name, Wen-am-I leaving’s face said – please make it soon!

Because the thorn in Waverley’s side for many long years, will now take his place in the very same Chamber as those who have tried repeatedly to ignore him, rubbish his criticism   and humiliate him at every possible opportunity. After hammering the Tories with (386) votes the new Councillor Hyman, together with Lib Dem Stewart Edge (292) put the Tory candidate Nicholas Louis Le Gal Le Gal, that the WW wrongly suggested  would win, in third place with (229). So the Farnham Residents’ have it!

In the Farnham Town Council election, popular David Beaman captured another seat for Farnham Residents with 556 votes to Tory Matthew Elliot’s (277).

However there was one bright spot for the Tories when Waverley Borough councillor Wyatt Ramsdale captured the Surrey County Council seat vacated by David Munro (now Surrey’s ~Police & Crime Commissioner) winning the seat with 932 votes to Jerry Hyman’s 754. (full list below) but  is he only keeping it warm until next May’s elections? 

Bring it on…Bring it on… Some checks and balances at last  at ‘Your Waverley?” And a little bird told us – there is more to come!

http://www.waverley.gov.uk/info/200138/elections/1898/farnham_by-elections

 

 

 

Mea Culpa! Mea Maxima Culpa!

 

Regular readers of Waverley Web will be aware that we strive to report doings in “Your Waverley” accurately but, occasionally, we get it wrong.

And when we get it wrong we are happy – eager even – to stand corrected. More than can be said for  Waverley Council, which never apologises or admits blame for anything to anyone.

Therefore, our thanks to Ms Beverley Weddell, Clerk to Alfold & Hascombe Parish Councils, who was out of the starting blocks with commendable Usain Bolt like gusto shortly after we posted yesterday’s article, ‘Now listen carefully …’

Ms Weddell pointed out to us that, in fact,

‘Neither Alfold Parish Council or Hascombe Parish Council objected to the minor amendment to planning application WA/2015/0695 for a change of use to D1 to allow for the expansion of Jigsaw School.’

And, for good measure, Ms Weddell went on to say,

‘For the avoidance of doubt, I have attached copies of both parish councils’ letters in response to application WA/2016/0634, which clearly state the parish councils had no objection to the change of use to facilitate the Jigsaw School. 

‘Application WA/2016/0634 was for two separate amendments to the original planning permission and both parish councils did object to an increase of 28,466sqm in B1, B2 and/or B8 Industrial floor space. Both letters give clear reasons for objecting to the increase in industrial space, as did the parish councils’ responses to the original application. This part of the application was not related to Jigsaw School.

‘Both Alfold Parish Council and Hascombe Parish Council have always been supportive of Jigsaw School and have never objected to any planning application relating to the school, therefore I strongly request that you delete the post or correct it immediately.’

In light of Mrs Weddell’s explanation, Waverley Web is happy to correct its post of yesterday and accept that the Parish Councils did not object to Jigsaw School’s application. After some enquiries to an Alfold villager it would appear that the parish council when considering the amendments were all aware that the Jigsaw School required more space in the mezzanine floor, but objected to any increase in the space, however they had not  appreciated that the application under discussion was for two separate amendments to the original planning application and when they heard Councillors Deanus and Grey objecting to any increase at the Waverley committee it appeared  they were objecting to any overall increase in floor space including that for the Jigsaw School’s application rather than that of the other party, AFC.

But – and forgive us for scratching our heads here – doesn’t this beg another, even bigger, question?

Why would Alfold and Hascombe Parish Councils object to the expansion of an industrial fuel cell company at Dunsfold Park, an acknowledged business park? Now, Waverley Web doesn’t pretend to know much about AFC’s business beyond what we have read on their website, which is, basically, and we paraphrase here, that they manufacture large-scale industrial fuel cells for a hydrogen economy that is starting to gain momentum internationally.

 Why would Alfold and Hascombe Parish Councils want to object to the expansion of a ‘green energy’ company on the largest brownfield site in their Borough? Do they not want to see individual companies succeed and thrive at Dunsfold Park? Do they not want to support the growth of such companies and the jobs they will create locally, not to mention the inward investment it brings to Surrey and the UK as a whole?

Is it that they think that a company based in a little backwater like Alfold and Dunsfold doesn’t deserve to succeed and grow simply because it chose to locate itself on the outskirts of their villages rather than a major town? Do the Parish Councillors think that the people who live in this area don’t deserve to have good jobs, in emerging new businesses, on their doorstep rather than commuting to far flung towns, like Crawley, Croydon, Gatwick, Haywards Heath, London and beyond to do a challenging and stimulating job and earn a good salary?

Why is it OK for their residents to commute along the A281 and B230 to Horsham and Guilford to work but it’s not OK for the residents of Guildford and Horsham to travel along the A281 and B230, through their villages, to  to work at Dunsfold Park? What’s so special about the villages of Alfold and Hascombe that they should be exempt from the through traffic that they themselves inflict on others?

And what would happen if the residents of Marwick Lane – who object so strongly to HGV traffic on their narrow lane – were told that Ocado and Amazon’s trucks were no longer permitted to deliver to their properties because, as they claim, the lane is unsuitable for those very delivery lorries? No doubt there would be widespread outrage amongst the Surry Housewives if Net-a-Porter couldn’t drop off the latest must-have designer bauble or Jack Wills was told Surrey Junior couldn’t order his hoodies and sweatshirts on-line for home delivery.

When, oh when, are the narrow minded individuals who make up the parochial parish councils of Alfold and Hascombe going to accept that young people in this area deserve to have the 1,200 odd jobs that were available at the former aerodrome, during BAE’s ownership, replaced? That they shouldn’t have to commute long distances – generating the very congestion that the Parish Council’s are complaining about – to good jobs?

Why can’t they, instead, praise and support the businesses that want to locate at Dunsfold Park, recognising that they will bring prosperity to the area, ensuring that local pubs and other businesses – some of whom were on their knees after BAE left – will benefit and thrive too if Dunsfold Park does?

So, to cut a long rant short, Ms Weddell, Waverley Web is happy to apologise for its confusion and our subsequent misreporting of Alfold and Hascombe Parish Councils’ written stance. But OH dear oh, dear, oh dear, when are those Parish Councillors going to wake up and smell the coffee and realise what a bunch of hypocrites they really are, because more traffic movements will undoubtedly result from the expansion of the Jigsaw School?

So support facilities for Autism but not for business and jobs?

Now listen carefully Dunsfold Park – we will say this … only once!

Rated Outstanding by Offsted and voted by the Good Schools  Guide as “The kind of School most parents searching  for an Autistic School can only dream of.”   Where is it? at Dunsfold Park on the same site where 100 Surrey companies also work and prosper!

Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 17.16.42.png

Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 17.17.16

Alfold and a Dunsfold councillors aided  by their parish councils, and the Hascombe Bunch tried to block this amazing school’s  efforts to expand, but thanks to our more enlightened councillors at “Your Waverley” they failed. 

Why did they object – Were they born spiteful – or do they practice everyday to perfect the art of spitefulness?

Although its planning application sought a minor amendment to the internal space of a building for use by the Jigsaw School – Dunsfold Park fell  foul of a couple of Alfold and Dunsfold councillors appear to be determined to make life as difficult as possible for the borough’s largest employer and its tenants.

Alfold and Hascombe Parish Councils both objected to one of the finest Schools for Autistic children and young adults in the South East moving from its present  portacabins on the site into a  new purpose-built building.

Although permission was granted in 2015 for around 10,000 sq. m of business space, the councils planning committee was asked to make a “minor amendment” to the scheme by extending a mezzanine floor inside the building for the personal use of  Jigsaw, together with  some extra  car parking.

Councillor Kevin Deanus – who sounds more like his predecessor and chief string puller Betty Ames every day – claimed   the  car parking allocation of over 282 spaces for the whole building – should include 6%  for the disabled. Despite being told by officers this was not “Your Waverley’s” adopted car parking standard, he insisted this was a  National guideline – so should apply at Dunsfold Park. In fact, the same rule should apply to all parking on the site! 

Not satisfied with this bit of spite – because if 6% of all allocated parking in the borough must be for the disabled – developments are falling short everywhere? Including Waverley’s car parks, and the Memorial Hall, in Farnham!

Dunsfold Dummy Councillor John Gray then went on to call for the six monthly monitoring of  heavy goods and vehicle movement passing through Dunsfold’s gates be changed to fortnightly. Despite being told by officers, the applicants were submitting data requested and movements did not exceed that allowed.

 “Every two weeks!”  Well – why not – the authority could employ a couple of dozen more officers to monitor the traffic going in and out of Stovolds Hill!

So instead of counting sheep to sleep at night – let’s all count vehicle movements at Dunsfold Park followers. You  couldn’t make it up!

Every two weeks Oh Dunsfold Dummy! – What planet are you on? It took councillor Michael “Sleepy” Goodridge, Councillor Stewart Stennett and Councillor Mary Foryszewski – to read 50 Shades of Gray’s..horoscope and explain that in the real world – not Planet Zonk where he and Deanus exist, that HGV traffic movements come under an Operator’s licence and even reports every six months presently submitted were onerous on both the officers and the applicants.

Is that steam we can see coming out of the ears of Screen Shot 2016-01-14 at 14.02.41.pngFlying Scotsman?

“After all Dunsfold Park is the borough’s largest employment site, set to increase, and where everything arrives on a truck” said Councillor Mary. And, said  officers,  where plans  had been submitted to increase the business and residential use! 

 

 

 

It’s make your mind up time Farnham voters?

And on our heads be it!

Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 06.58.58.pngMore of the same? Or perhaps a New Dawn for political representation in Farnham?

Tomorrow Thursday Farnham people will have the opportunity to put some opposition back into the Surrey/Farnham political scene. The elections for four council wards across the town has brought some frenetic activity summed up above  in the Farnham Herald.

Voters have no excuse for not turning out if they actually want to make a difference to the overwhelming stronghold the Tories now have over both Surrey County  and Waverley borough Councils. If they don’t turn out in their droves then on our heads be it!

The Waverley Web has no particular political axe to grind but believes more checks and balances are urgently needed  if we are to have the type of local government of which we can all be proud.

Recently the deputy chairman of the South West Surrey Conservative Association stated that planning was not a matter for his association and that councillors were not whipped on planning matters…

We all know that is absolute rubbish, and that letters have been sent and influence exerted on councillors on a whole variety of planning applications affecting the borough of Waverley by both the SWSCA and the Guildford Conservative Association. Who is this man trying to kid?  Does Uncle Tom think all us voting fodder fell off the last banana boat? At one planning meeting councillors miffed at  not receiving  their letter from an MP asked for it to be read out in public, but the request was refused. WW wonders why?

As we predicted  here last week about monkeys and blue rosettes! read: Farnham election – latest?

Screen Shot 2016-08-17 at 07.30.18.png

A bit of extra rubbish for the Surrey County Council tip?

Riding roughshod – “Your Waverley” – does it all the time!

Ah! but Farnham’s  Memorial Hall fits in with “Your Waverley’s” cunning plans.

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 19.37.05.png

Isn’t that exactly what the people of Farnham have been saying for years Mrs Margaret Potter?

Regardless of what anyone says or does to prevent the Memorial Hall fulfilling whatever uses “Your Waverley” has planned for it – it takes not a blind bit of notice,

It would appear that Covenants, like pie crusts, are there to be broken and regardless of what the original intentions were for the building, “Your Omnipotent Waverley” will do with it whatever it likes.

It fooled the Trustees of the Gostrey Centre into believing that it would be the main user, but then the Trustees should be well used by now to hearing that white man speaks with forked tongue. After all the council promised to keep the Gostrey Centre in good nick, but let it fall into disrepair giving the Trustees no option but to go along with “Your Waverley’s” cunning plans.

It may be the Council training centre this week, maybe the council offices, next, one thing you can be sure of the people of Farnham will not get a say because that would smack of local democracy and that will never do – because the rest of the borough might expect the same treatment.

A nice little earner?

Fancy earning £79 per hour  working for “Your Surrey County Council?”

It may help pay your bill for taking your rubbish to the Civic Tips in future?

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 22.56.57.png
Agency staff at Surrey County Council are earning up to £79 per hour, the equivalent of £148,000 a year.

This quite staggering  figure was revealed by County Councillor Denise Le Gal, cabinet member for business services, and a Farnham Borough Councillor, in response to a question at the county council’s full meeting recently.

And… her teenage son, who is standing in the Farnham by-election may soon be joining her at “Your Waverley.”  Well that little duo is certainly something worth waiting for… isn’t it? Screen Shot 2016-06-15 at 12.01.49

In a written reply to a question from Redhill councillor Jonathan Essex about agency staff pay rates Councillor Le Gal said: “The council employs a range of specialist agency staff who provide cover for vacancies (short and longer term) or specialist skills for short duration work. The directorates employing the highest paid locums are Business Services and Children’s, Schools and Families.

“The highest paid locums in Business Services are generally engaged as specialists on developmental projects with hourly rates of pay (including agency mark up) in the range £46 to £79.

“The remaining highest paid locums are in Children’s, Schools and Families and are generally engaged in specialist assessment roles working directly with children with hourly rates of pay (including agency mark up) in the range £59 to £76.”

When Councillor Essex dared ask for confirmation that this meant some agency staff were earning £148,000 a year, Councillor Le Gal said: “Mr Essex I’m glad to see that you are able to do the math and that is for one particular position based on the higher hourly rate that was quoted.”

Councillor Essex also asked how much the council would save if the agency workers were employed as council staff.

Don’t worry Councillor Essex, the county council doesn’t need to save any money – it is just about to invest multi -millions in a property development in Farnham…Oh! perhaps Councillor Le Gal didn’t actually tell you about that?

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 22.58.05.png

 

UKIP Election – could its new Leader be a former Waverley Councillor?

Yes, it could – Diane James top row far right could be the next Leader of UKIP – and OH! how her former Waverley colleagues – some of whom are no longer at Waverley Towers – would hate that! The former Waverley councillor for Ewhurst will be standing against the candidates below.

We await September 15th with baited breath!

Good Luck MEP and Home Affairs Spokesman DJ.

 

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 21.25.44.pngScreen Shot 2016-08-08 at 21.26.02.png

Tales from the Riverbank.

Sing-a-long Down by The Riverbank.

Screen Shot 2016-08-11 at 19.32.28.png

As you may be aware the Cranleigh Civic Society is…continuously ...

Screen Shot 2016-03-26 at 10.51.29
This week it  accompanied members of the Environment Agency (EA) and Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) on a formal river walk along Cranleigh Waters.

Regular readers of WW will know that we have been highlighting the Society’s concerns  about  the Cranleigh Waters in Elmbridge Road. (You know, near the dangerous one way Wey and Arun Canal Bridge where motorists regularly play at being Kamikaze pilots! )

Well… it stops flowing, especially during the summer and autumn, and  for some time,   CCS has  been having  ongoing discussions with both authorities who, they say, are taking this situation extremely seriously.  The river walk was arranged to help identify areas of, low to no flow, obstructions, signs of wildlife, invasive species, as well as gauging the overall depth and width of the river.

It proved to be an extremely useful exercise and the Society wants  to thank everyone who took part and looks forward to sharing its report.

But now… it needs help from residents willing to become  Volunteer River Wardens? To enable it to continue  monitoring the river for pollution, as well as help to improve and protect its biodiversity.

Volunteer River Wardens would be welcomed, and anyone interested in protecting and improving Cranleigh’s local environment should get in touch.

CCS has  arranged its first RiverSearch FREE volunteer training day with the help of Surrey Wildlife Trust  on 2 September 2016 at Farnham Town Council Offices from 9:30 am to 4:00pm. Numbers are limited to 12 people and will be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Please contact the CCCS at www.cranleighsociety.org  if you would like to   reserve a place and for more information.

After  the training session  volunteers will be assigned a stretch of river (about a  1km ) to carry out a mapping survey (with the landowner’s consent) during which all features and habitats along the river are mapped and photographed and any issues reported.

After this  initial mapping survey volunteers will carry out a regular walk over surveys once every 3 months keeping to keep an eye out for any issues as well as recording the wildlife and habitats they come across.

Says the CCS: ” This is an exciting opportunity to get involved and help to protect the river habitat on our own doorstep for the benefit of local people and our local wildlife.”

Keep at it Cranleigh Civic Society – you are doing good! 

 

Is this where the money is coming from to redevelop Farnham’s East Street?

Said one of our followers:

“I have just been to the tip and been handed a leaflet. SCC are going to charge for rubble etc from house/garden improvements from 1st September and not a small charge either, £4 bag for rubble or soil. At the same time they gave me a leaflet about stopping fly tipping!!, oh the irony of it all.”

That –  and charging for parking a car at Guildford’s  Newlands Corner beauty spot where thousands of Surrey people have been visiting for donkeys years free of charge !

Another nice little earner?

Oh and we almost forgot!

Surrey County Council has decided to remove its £30,000 annual grant which helps “Your Waverley” provide Meals on Wheels for the elderly in the borough of Waverley! Scrooge or what?

So Now we know where they are getting the money towards the £58m Surrey County Council is investing in Farnham’s East Street redevelopment!

Well, it must have got its priorities right, mustn’t it – and there we all were thinking that our Councils were there to improve the lives of the people living there – not  turn into property developers, particularly when it is a high risk venture that the commercial world wouldn’t touch with a bargepole!

Bad smells all round in Waverley!

Screen Shot 2016-08-09 at 21.48.57.png

Screen Shot 2016-08-08 at 21.20.49.png

WW does not actually know – but we expect this prosecution will probably have put the man out of business? Perhaps someone could let us know at mail to:contact@waverleyweb.org

We wonder could we, the council taxpayers of Waverley, take out a similar prosecution  for the bad smell that is also emitting from “Your Waverley’s”  premises at  Waverley Towers these days?

Just for starters:

Fraud cover ups, unauthorised development requiring enforcement action; councillors granting planning permissions in the Green Belt to their colleagues ;  data protection infringements; bullying; infringements of their complaints policy; breaking every environmental law known to man or beast; an unlawful recycling strategy; infringing the pledges councillors made during the 2015 elections on Green Belt strategy in the Daft Local Plan; Holding secret meetings with developers – almost all of whom have now secured planning permission for vast numbers of housing in the countryside. Committing “our money” in secret to support a development in the Green Belt, and “Your Waverley” preparing to grant ‘Your Waverley” planning permission to do so.

Committed to constructing the £100m Brightwells Development without ever having assessed the traffic issues, falsifying the transport assessment… and so it goes on…starting the Farnham Memorial Hall development without first “Appropriating” the land and without an Evironmental Impact Assessment being part of the East Street scheme; turning  said hall into offices for the Waverley Training Services without a change of use planning permission…and on …

Phew… So many dodge dealings it would even embarrass  Dell Boy  and Trotters Independent Traders ?