Protect “Our Bramley” campaigners cause chaos in village and bring A281 to a halt!

 

Why is it, Waverley Web wonders, that people who move to an area think they know better than those who have lived there for generations?

The Wandsworth & Wimbledon Wanderers who lived around the Commons before they moved out to the wide-open spaces of Surrey, when the charms of Nappy Valley paled, were out in force in Bramley this morning creating chaos during the commuter crush hour.

Not content with despoiling their quaint little corner of Waverley by erecting garish posters amongst the hedgerows, the Boden-clad posse were waving placards aloft and trying to engage with poor motorists on their way to work, thrusting leaflets at anyone who was foolish enough to wind down their window to tell them to bog-off!

 

Screen Shot 2016-09-30 at 11.42.45.png

Instead of setting bad examples to their children by playing in the road – KEEP BRAMLEY CHILDREN SAFE screams another poster! – why don’t these country migrants engage their brains and think about their children’s future. How are their children going to afford to live in Bramley in 15 years time? ‘Cos they ‘aint going to be selling up multi-million pound houses in the capital – that they bought for a song, did up and subsequently sold up, enabling them to buy up a slice of suburban Surrey – which is what Mummy and Daddy did, thinking it makes them just like the characters in Jill Barkem’s much loved Brambly Hedge books! Bramley is a small, suburban village on the edge of Guildford, a commuter town. A quaint, rural backwater it ‘aint!

DUNSFOLD PARK WILL ADD 41 MINUTES TO YOUR JOURNEY screams another poster or 10!

Eh? Who said?

Challenge the Bramley Babes on the origins of this claim and they’re clueless. But it’s a pretty BIG claim and Waverley Web, despite digging deeper than Peter Rabbit in Farmer McGregor’s cabbage patch, has been unable to get to the root of it. Can anyone out there enlighten us?

We know we’re only local yokels in the eyes of the Wandsworth and Wimbledon Wanderers but even Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson, at the height of the New Labour Project and their Dark Lord powers, might have blushed to tell motorists the addition of 1,800 houses was going to add a 41 minute delay to their daily commute!

So come on PoW – or is it PoB? – Because we don’t hear too many protestations to the developments about to decorate Cranleigh’s greenfiels, or Godalming’s, Haslemere’s Farnham’s Badshot Lea’s tell us do, where you’re getting your intell from! Cos we’d love to know …

Is it now “libellous” to mention THE FRAUD?

There  we were a day or two ago posting – Don’t Mention The Fraud! and here we are mentioning it again… Why? Quite simply because one of “Your Waverley” councillors who is implicated in the DMTF, wrote to us complaining – and perish the thought that the Waverley Web wants   councillors complaining.  If we get it wrong, we apologise,  if we don’t we explain our reasons for not doing so. OK folks?

Waverley Staff and Councillors 2015

Councillor Jim Edwards.

 

 Those of you who know our little reason for watching over the everyday life of Waverley folk will know our message.  “Oh what a tangled web we weave when once we practise to deceive.”  So below the spider’s web is the comment we received from a miffed Councillor Jim Edwards to this post: Whatever you do… don’t mention… THE FRAUD!

 

Screen Shot 2016-09-28 at 16.40.14.png

Screen Shot 2016-09-28 at 16.40.35.png

Screen Shot 2016-09-28 at 16.41.24.png

Screen Shot 2016-09-28 at 16.41.56.png

So, Councillor Edwards there’s your answer and we will let the public judge? So forgive us for not apologising, because we are unsure what we are actually apologising for?

So in the meantime – thank you for reading and contacting the Waverley Web, it is nice to know you follow us along with your colleagues, who we are told, consider  us their “secret indulgence,” at home of course, because it is blocked from the council’s internal  system.

Perhaps we should also mention that it was you Councillor Edwards who so warmly congratulated  ‘Your Waverley” for  informing council tenants so promptly that they had been overcharged for their water. The council, along with over 70 other authorities,  have to repay tenants and WBC’s bill is likely to be around £400,000  for those tenants who are not metered by Thames Water.

 So vociferous was  his thanks  for the timely way the mistake was dealt with, and  tenants  informed,  it was almost funny. Because… of course there had been widespread publicity about the mistake, affecting  the other authorities, – so no one  could  hide this little error  could they ? Dare we hope a lesson has been learned?

It also bothers us that, THE FRAUD,  appeared to have been covered  by the auditors!

 

Are wannabe developers crawling all over villages around Farnham?

Well ! All those wannabe developers  have been crawling all over the East of the borough  now with numerous planning permissions tucked under their belts, their appetite for more continues unabated. WW hears that helicopters are flying over Waverley’s towns and villages in an attempt to spot suitable development land, pushing letters through doors and harassing old people – one aged 93!

Screen Shot 2016-09-27 at 14.42.10.png

Taken from the Farnham Herald.

16-09-26-developer-has-eyes-set-on-badshot-lea-copy

 This time its a “mystery” developer that has its eyes set on the green, green, grass south of Badshot Lea.

 The locals have heard that plans are afoot for another 350 homes, to add to the deluge of homes planned there. This time on land between the Squires Garden Centre, St Georges Road and the A31. So…if you add this
to Gleeson Homes’ 254 opposite the Hogs Back in Tongham and the 140 homes pending at appeal in lower Weybourne Lane , the village is – like others in the borough, quite simply under siege.
Does the fact that it is beyond the boundaries as defined in Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan make any difference?  Somehow WW doubts it?
The locals have worked tirelessly with the Farnham Town Council, in the preparation of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, realising it must accept some development and that the village should grow. Hence Tices Field and the Little Acres/CaffynParsons sites being earmarked for development .There are also another two sites,  Lower Weybourne Lane and Green Lane.
But, of course, with no adopted Local Plan, any  Neighbourhood Plans that underpin it, mean nothing!  – So all the wannabe’s are pitching in before a Government Inspector gets anywhere near inspecting it!  Can hardly blame them can we?
An application to build 80 homes at Little Acres Nursery in St Georges Road was approved by the Joint Planning Committee last Monday 26th September. Despite no satisfactory access to the site, despite some existing properties  having roads on three sides and insufficient infrastructure contributions! Because if Liz the Biz Planning Chief says it’s OK then its OK to add another development to Badshot Lea increased the village by 30%.  Two further applications will be heard in the next few months. The first for 105 in place of the Farnham Park Hotel, to which 193 people have already objected, and another for 64 homes at the corner of Green Lane, Badshot Lea Road and Monkton Lane. All bar one, are green field sites! God help the people of Farnham, which is already choking on exhaust fumes!

Perhaps, the Protect Our Waverley Group that is presently bombarding the homes of local people in the Dunsfold Park area with objection literature, should jump off its  parochial bandwagon and roll it on over to the other side of “Your Waverley?” After all doesn’t it  purport to be want to protect “Our Waverley” not just the largest brown field sit in the borough from development!

Be afraid, be very afraid?

Screen Shot 2016-09-26 at 11.16.00.png

And… Dunsfold  Park is a Brownfield site! 

DENISE WORDSWORTH ‘OBJECT[S] IN THE STRONGEST TERMS’

Apparently, Ms Wordsworth’s views and that of others ‘have not been listened to … there are nearly 2000 objections to [the development of Dunsfold Park and] it is beholden on [Waverley’s] councillors to listen to those that voted them in.’

Be afraid, “Your Waverley,”  be very afraid, Ms Wordsworth doesn’t like your plans to develop 1,800 houses at the old Aerodrome and she’s a woman who, seemingly, knows how to construct an essay of an objection. Never was a woman more aptly named!

And before anyone thinks we’re picking on Ms Wordsworth, for the record, Waverley Web agrees with her assessment that the Council’s handbrake about turn in respect of Dunsfold Park’s proposals is a ‘knee jerk / lazy reaction to its need to supply additional housing  required for the new Local Plan. And,  the easiest means to do this is create a New Settlement. However,  it is disingenuous to claim that the proposed development is being dumped in a ‘remote rural location in the SE of the county – where the population is low and the voices are not as loud as those in Farnham, Haslemere, Godalming, etc.’

No one has been more vociferous than Alfold, Bramley, Chiddingfold, Dunsfold and Hascombe. Indeed, the litter-louts have been out in force this week-end in Bramley erecting more of their garish banners objecting to Dunsfold Park New Town.

Waverley Web has said it before and we’ll say it again: you need planning permission to erect bloody great banners that desecrate the beautiful villages that Ms Wordsworth and her comrades are so keen to protect. Self-righteous indignation is no excuse for flouting planning regulations – whose protection PoW and their supporters are no doubt keen to claim the minute they believe Dunsfold Park has put a foot out of line. Perhaps they should bear in mind when flyposting that what’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander!

‘SAVE BRAMLEY’S CHILDREN’ proclaims one of the yellow perils (otherwise known as PoW posters).

Er, from what? Bramley isn’t a third world village … although to hear PoW talk, you could be forgiven for thinking it is: narrow, pot-hole ridden roads that are unsuitable for vehicles and HGVs, flooding and sewage problems …

Until they want to sell their houses that is! Then Bramley, morphs into the Belgravia of Surrey! And, miraculously, the Dunsfold-Park-blighted 45-minute journey into Guildford becomes a miraculous 10-minute hop, skip and a jump with its excellent transport links!

‘SAY NO TO MORE HGVs’ screeches another poster. Do they not want HGVs in Bramley, delivering fuel to the Esso petrol station, supplies to the Nisa store in the village centre  transporting goods to M&S and Sainsbury’s in Cranleigh? But of course Bramley residents don’t object to their own needs being met by these HGVs, it’s other people’s needs they object to. We have two words for those people: GROW UP! Bramley isn’t an island – if you want to live on one move to the Outer Hebrides.

Look, we sympathise Ms Wordsworth, we really do, honestly, and Waverley Web has never made any secret of the fact that it despairs of Waverley Borough Council, but we fully support the Government’s policy of BROWNFIELD FIRST!

The last couple of years – indeed the last couple of weeks – have amply demonstrated that Cranleigh simply cannot take any more development unless and until someone – preferably the developers concerned – do something about the lack of infrastructure. The sewage system and the power network are at breaking point in that optimistically self-styled village – indeed we would argue that they are broken. And, as many Alfold residents know to their cost, having sewage gurgling up into the bath and the dishwasher during heavy rainfall is no joke.

Nor, for that matter, is losing green fields (think Amlets Lane), after green field (think Horsham Road), after green field (think Knowle Lane ) to development – especially when there is a perfectly good 600-acre brownfield site immediately adjacent to the A281, that’s ripe for redevelopment.screen-shot-2016-09-26-at-11-18-26

The reality is that whilst the A281 does suffer from a degree of congestion during the rush hour, so does every other A-road in the county not to mention the country and recent surveys reveal  that delays through Bramley ,whilst not ideal, are minor compared to  delays suffered by people in Farnham and other parts of the borough. 

We’re sorry to break it to you all, but 2,000 objectors  to Dunsfold Park isn’t that significant; in fact, it’s so embarrassingly small we’re surprised you even mention it. Waverley has a population of 115,665 (according to the last census) and you think 2,000 objections is a lot? Hello?! We suggest you wake up and do the maths! Of course, in an ideal world, we’d all like to pull up the drawbridge and preserve Alfold, Bramley, Chiddingfold, Cranleigh, Dunsfold, Farnham, Godalming, Hascombe, et al exactly as they are but that’s what every generation has wanted since time in memorial and if they’d succeeded very few of us would be able to enjoy living in those villages now!

We know you’ve put a lot of time and thought into your objections, Ms Wordsworth, and we are in awe of your diligence and patience – we really are – but, frankly, the next generation won’t thank you for it.

But the same cannot be said for most. Because ready prepared letters that just require a a tick and a stamp are being thrust through residents’  letterboxes, in readiness to fill more landfill.

Unfortunately, we need  more homes and in Waverley suitable locations are limited. Whether we  like it or not – and, yes, we know you don’t – Dunsfold Park offers the best option of an admittedly bad bunch. Instead of railing against it why not embrace the alternative view and be grateful that Waverley has this huge brownfield site and consider encouraging ‘Your Waverley”  to build on it to so  save our precious green fields and create homes that won’t be a drain on an  existing,  fragile,infrastructure?

You speak of   views spoilt from Hascombe Hill. Why not turn that thought on its head and consider  the stunning views  to Hascombe  and Pitch Hills residents of the new settlement could have from their village? 

So how about it, Ms Wordsworth, why not  embrace the scheme and even – whisper who dares – encourage Dunsfold Park to contribute to the reintroduction of the Horsham to Guildford railway line and solve a lot of the existing problems on the A281 into the bargain?! Really, when you think about it – really think about it – it’s a no-brainer. But, you know where the objectors to that particular scheme live – yes, you guessed – BRAMLEY! 

WW – feels a Merger coming on?

The Waverley Web fears it may be watching “Your Waverley’s” death throes. Oh dear – does that mean we may have to go too?

Screen Shot 2016-04-12 at 11.56.04.png

Just in case you were unaware folks – the Government wants to “help” our local authorities  become “more self sufficient.”

In short  it is withdrawing some, and then all, its funding!

So to “help it” prepare for the evil day and help”  plan services – the ones that are left – and “strengthen financial management and efficiency” and “make use of its reserves” (you know the money it has in the Bank) it wants to give “Your Waverley” a four year “funding settlement.”

Phew we hear you say, that’s alright then … isn’t it?

No, actually it isn’t ! Because “Your Waverley” is between a very big rock and a very hard place! If they don’t take the settlement now – they lose the chance. And… it could be worse,  in other words the Government says,  “take it or leave it.”

If they take it?  This is what it gets:

Screen Shot 2016-09-20 at 21.11.20.png

RSG stands for – Revenue Support Grant

If the council takes the four year option – it has  “certainty”  of losing Government money year on year until it gets nothing in 2018/19 and then gets minus £814,000 in 2019/20.

If it doesn’t accept – then quite simply the only way is DOWN!

How much further down do you go than down? Answers on a postcard please !

All a bit hard to swallow for a council that once received many millions in its annual grant from  Government!

And… it gets worse because it is unlikely to get more than a smidgen of the business rates it has been promised.  Why? Because the Government intends to distribute what Waverley and other SE Local authorities collect around the rest of the country.

And only moments before the Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Committee debated the lamentable situation – one councillor asked if the rumour was true that Waverley was telling the public if they wanted a home – go to the private sector – or go North.

Well they may be right – is  that where the money is going?

Or is the Government seeking  more radical steps? Perhaps it wants council to merge with neighbouring authorities – to save waste –  maximise efficiency – and perhaps consider stopping their unaffordable Final Salary Pension Schemes?

This is what the Council Report said:

Screen Shot 2016-09-20 at 21.31.19.png

Screen Shot 2016-09-20 at 21.33.55.png

Ah,  not to worry there is the New Homes Bonus? Isn’t there going to be a whole lot of new homes in the borough – almost 10,000 and counting? Could this be the reason? 

How did councillors  react?  With incredulity – one said it was “Iniquitous, that Waverley would lose income that would be spent further afield, this was totally wrong and  should be resisted at all costs!”  

A council officer said : “We do not know where will find £3m over the next four years.” and warned:  “there were  no magic bullets!”  

What message would the committee be sending to The Executive?  “Waverley has a difficult nettle to grasp.” And…

The report goes on to say:

The offer made by the Government, as part of the Spending Review, is to any council that wished to take up a four year funding settlement up to 2019/20. The purpose of this offer is to help local authorities prepare for the move to a more self- sufficient resource base by 2020. The multi-year settlements are intended to provide more funding certainty and stability for the sector that would enable more proactive planning of service delivery. The Government expects these multi-year settlements to be used to “strengthen financial management and efficiency, including maximising value in arrangements with suppliers and making strategic use of reserves in the interests of residents”.

  1. A copy of the conditions from the Secretary of State is attached at Annexe 1 of this report. In theory this offer is fixed, however, this does not mean that other changes may not arise outside of this offer. It is not clear what the impact would be of not accepting this offer and it is unlikely that this would become clear at least until December 2016, at which point the 4 year offer will no longer be available. On balance it is being recommended to accept the offer as it provides an element of certainty and is difficult to see authorities who choose not to accept the offer benefiting as a result. In fact, they could suffer a disproportionately high share of any further reductions.
  2. The Budget report agreed by Council in February 2016 incorporates the funding provided within the four year settlement offer. If this offer is accepted, it provides greater certainty as the funding received will not be less than outlined in the final settlement and should not be subject to the yearly process determining the local government finance settlement. The following table sets out the Revenue Support Grant (RSG).*Indicative – subject to confirmation from Government pending decision on timing of business rate funding reform.
  3. In order to take up the four year funding settlement for the period 2016/17 to 2019/20, an Efficiency Plan must be prepared and published by 14 October 2016. This offer relates to the RSG funding incorporated within the MTFS for the 4 year period 2016/17 to 2019/20 and ensures that it will remain uncharged “barring exceptional circumstances and subject to the normal statutory consultation process for the local government finance settlement.
    1. 4.1  If the four year offer is not accepted the RSG funding would be subject to the existing yearly process for determining the local government finance settlement. Allocations could be subject to additional reductions dependent on the fiscal climate and the need to make further savings to reduce the deficit.
    2. 4.2  There are only two options available to the Executive. The first option is to approve the Efficiency Plan and accept the Settlement offer and thereby provide a degree of certainty over the level of funding up to an including 2019/20. Alternatively, the Executive could decide not to accept the government 4 year offer and wait to find out the financial impact of this decision, accepting that at this point there will be no ability to switch back and accept the 4 year offer.
  4. To accept the four year offer, an Efficiency Plan has been prepared and is included within Annexe 2. No guidance has been issued from Government for the production of these plans but it must cover the full 4 year period and be open and transparent about the benefits this will bring to both the council and the community. Further, the Government does not expect this document to be a significant burden on councils but rather a drawing together of existing corporate plans and strategies, and this has been the approach adopted to produce this Efficiency Plan.

2016/17 £m

2017/18 £m

2018/19 £m

2019/20 £m

RSG

765

61

0

-814*

6. Business Rates

The Government has announced that it intends to move to a position where all business rates collected will be retained by the local government sector. This does not mean that each local authority will keep all of the business rates it collects and it has been confirmed that the system of tariffs and top ups will continue to enable the Government to redistribute business rates collected between local authorities nationally.

The current position or Waverley is that it collects £35million of business rates each year and retains approximately £2million. The Government is consulting on its detailed proposals which are due to be implemented in 2019/20. Based on early indications, it is estimated that Waverley’s position will not improve. Key risks around business rates are:

  •   How appeals will be treated
  •   How much business rates growth will be retained
  •   When and how frequently the whole system will be reset.Officers will report to Members as the Government’s review develops.

7. New Homes Bonus (NHB)

Earlier in 2016, the Government launched a review and consultation on the future of New Homes Bonus. The outcome of this review was due to be published in July but the Government delayed it to the autumn. Waverley will receive £2.2m of NHB in 2016/17 and with significant house growth projected this is a very important source of funding for the Council. Officers will report to members when the Government’s proposals are known and the impact has been assessed.

Conclusion

8. If this proposal is approved, the Council will write to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to accept the 4 year settlement and publish the Council’s Efficiency Plan. Where appropriate, consultation will be carried out for individual proposals by the relevant service.

Recommendation

Corporate Overview & Scrutiny Committee is invited to consider the proposal that Waverley accepts the four year funding settlement for the period 2016/17 to 2019/20 on the terms set out in the report, and agree any comments to be passed to the Executive.

 

 

 

The Government will offer any council that wishes to take it up a four-year funding settlement to 2019-20. This includes:

  •   Common Council of the City of London
  •   London borough councils
  •   district councils
  •   county councils
  •   Council of the Isles of Scilly
  •   Greater London Authority
  •   metropolitan county fire and rescue authorities
  •   combined fire and rescue authorities.The Government is making a clear commitment to provide minimum allocations for each year of the Spending Review period, should councils choose to accept the offer and if they have published an efficiency plan.What the offer includesgive them control over an additional £13 billion of tax that they collect.
  • To ensure that the reforms are fiscally neutral local government will need to take on extra responsibilities and functions. DCLG and the Local Government Association will soon be publishing a series of discussion papers which will inform this and other areas of the reform debate.The new burdens doctrine operates outside the settlement, so accepting this offer will not impact on any new burden payments agreed over the course of the four years.The Government will also need to take account of future events such as the transfer of functions to local government, transfers of responsibility for functions between local authorities, mergers between authorities and any other unforeseen events. However, barring exceptional circumstances and subject to the normal statutory consultation process for the local government finance settlement, the Government expects these to be the amounts presented to Parliament each year.

Interest in accepting this offer will only be considered if a link to a published efficiency plan is received by 5pm Friday 14th October. We will provide confirmation of the offer shortly after the deadline.

Process for those who do not take up the offer

Those councils that chose not to accept the offer, or do not qualify, will be subject to the existing yearly process for determining the local government finance settlement.

Allocations could be subject to additional reductions dependant on the fiscal climate and the need to make further savings to reduce the deficit.

At present we do not expect any further multi-year settlements to be offered over the course of this parliament

 

Addressing the Gap

The Council faces a significant challenge in addressing its forecasted budget deficit over the next 4 years in an environment where there is significant uncertainty and increasing levels of risks. The Council will need to adopt a mixed approach to addressing the projected £2.7m budget shortfall on the General Fund over the 4 year period (see figure 1).

Purpose of Efficiency Plan

  •   Provide a high level framework for addressing the projected budget shortfall in the medium term.
  •   Demonstrate that sufficient resources will be available to meet Waverley’s objectives and priorities, particularly in the delivery of value for money.
  •   Look ahead to the longer term to protect and help plan sustainable services within an extremely challenging external economic and funding environment.
  •   Strengthen Waverley’s financial resilience and manage volatility and risk, including maintaining an adequate level of reserves.
  •   Secure, maintain and develop Waverley’s capital assets consistent with the Asset Management Plan.
  •   Anticipate financial pressures and identify potential ways to balance Waverley’s budget including through efficiency measures.The Council recognises that its ability to continue to deliver the full range of front line services will depend on its ability to generate new funding streams, manage costs and improve the way that the residents access services whilst supporting those that cannot help themselves.Managing Financial Risk and UncertaintyAs the Council’s funding becomes increasingly reliant on local sources and exposed to greater fluctuations, it is increasingly important to have appropriate strategies for managing any impact. The Council has identified the main areas of risk as:
    •   reducing business rates yield
    •   falling income from services from demand changes and other external barriers
    •   rising operational asset running costs
    •   rising demand and expectation of core services
    •   new and extended legal duties
    •   future of New Homes Bonus funding and business rates funding share

Annexe 2

To manage the impact of a reducing business rates yield, the Council has:

  •   Agreed new staff structure in the revenues team to divert staff resources towards debt collection and enforcement
  •   Worked with the District Valuer and partners to try and develop reliable forecasts of business rates valuation changes
  •   Reviewed the benefits and risks of ‘pooling’ with neighbouring authorities and joined the pool in 2016/17.
  •   Progressed WBC led schemes leading to growth in business rates yield including Brightwells.To address falling income from services, the Council will continue to:
  •   Implement measures to improve collection and enforcement.
  •   Review fee structures and tariffs to generate more income and ensureefficiency of collection.
  •   Approach government individually and in partnership with others to seekchanges which frustrate income opportunities which currently require Council Tax payers to subsidise services which could be paid for by the ‘users’ of those services.To address uncertainty over the future of the New Homes Bonus and Government Funding the Council has:
  •   Restricted use of NHB to within the revenue budget with the balance being used for invest to save and investment opportunities.
  •   Set up an ‘Equalisation Fund’ to manage in year deficits and surpluses in funding to act as a buffer to deal with in year volatility to ensure that sudden changes in business rate yield can be managed without the need to make service reductionsKey Actions in Efficiency Plan
    •   Review the approach to budget reviews and the Foresight Efficiency Programme to ensure budgets deliver good value for money and are aligned to Corporate Plan priorities.
    •   Optimising return on cash surplus in times of low interest rates, balancing security, liquidity and return.
    •   Undertake a fundamental review of capital spending plans to ensure a sustainable Business case with affordable capital programmes.
    •   Utilise General Fund asset strategies including disposals and acquisitions including SANG where appropriate and establish a new Investment Advisory Board.
    •   Maximise invest to save opportunities to generate income, improve processes and/or make savings.
    •   Identify further efficiencies under the ‘Foresight’ Efficiency Plan including from reconfiguring IT systems procurement.
    •   Secure new funding opportunities t

Whatever you do… don’t mention… THE FRAUD!

Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 10.00.06.png

Screen Shot 2016-09-20 at 00.00.23.png

You wouldn’t Adam and Eve it – would you? Since we published this post  the accounts have been taken down!

WW is not about giving people advice, but in this particular instance it is breaking the habit of a lifetime – well perhaps only 10 months!

To, that heroic  Milford couple who have been banging their heads against a brick wall hoping, expecting, anticipating, dreaming, of the day  … when …

“Your Waverley” would do  a thorough, honest, transparent investigation, and then,  do  the decent thing  and … admit they got it wrong and apologise  to the public for covering up a serious FRAUD that cost us ratepayers a lot of money! A fraud perpetrated by a Birmingham chancer who tried the same ruse on the BBC and numerous other organisations but failed, because they had proper processes in place to prevent it!

JUST FORGET IT!

and then …  – do what the Farnham Residents have done and…

IF YOU CAN’T BEAT THEM ..  JOIN THEM.

And … you know what Mr Egan … please, and with the greatest respect, because we are in total awe  of  your spirit, your dogged determination, tenacity and the succinct and patient way you have made your complaints,  over more than a year to no avail. So please don’t waste any more of your valuable breath, because breath is so good for you. Because,  you will be fobbed off, just like everyone else who makes a complaint against  “Your Waverley.”

Complaints continue to rocket  as more and more people are determined to take them task. But  to get your voice heard there is only one way – through the ballot box!

 GET YOURSELF ELECTED – GET ON THE INSIDE AND THEN YOU COULD ATTEMPT TO HELP SOME OF THE BLIND  BUNCH OF OFFICERS AND COUNCILLORS IN DIRE NEED  OF SOME CHECKS AND BALANCES FROM A CREDIBLE OPPOSITION. SOMETHING THIS COUNCIL HAS BEEN LACKING FOR FAR TOOOOOOOOO LONG!

WHY?

Because those 19 councillors complicit in covering up a serious fraud on their watch, are blind to their own incompetency, blind to their complete disregard for the public they are elected  to serve. Blind to their mistakes and how they are perceived by the man in “Your Waverley’s” streets, who is beginning to wake up.

They turn a blind eye to senior officers’  use  of the Legal System’s Sub Judice rules as  an excuse to ensure that the 2015 local council elections did not  tarnish the Conservative Party.    It took a council whistleblower to out them of that fraud in The Surrey Advertiser. Only 19 councillors and a handful of officers knew. th remainder, including  the tiny opposition of Diane James and  her UKIP colleagues  were treated like mushrooms. Kept In the dark, and showered in  manure.

So come on Milford. people.  Vote in a decent local resident so we get the governance we deserve, we think Mr and Mrs Egan may fit the bill, after all they’ve been watching Waverley long enough from the outside. Let them in to shine a light on “Your Waverley.”

Here’s the Egan’s latest missive  to two great local papers. Will it embarrass “Your Waverley?” Will it persuade it to treat residents in an honest, respectful and straightforward manner? No way Jose! Pick up your cheque and walk Chief Ex “WenhamIleaving.” Or apologies to the public, after all we all make mistakes, we would all respect you for it.

THIS IS BRIAN EGAN’S LETTER TO THE NEWSPAPERSScreen Shot 2016-09-20 at 17.16.14.png

THIS IS HIS LETTER TO ‘YOUR WAVERLEY.’

You are all aware, at least since October 2015 that Waverley BC was the victim of an attempted fraud of around £350,000. You are probably not aware that the work practices and safeguards that the Council should have had in place to protect us from this fraud taking place were not and because those responsible for making sure of the protection were ashamed of their omissions they concocted one of the most incompetent institutional corporate cover ups that this Borough has ever experienced. Those officers responsible for this cock up, or who colluded with the cover up, must be dismissed without pension, they are: Paul Wenham, Graeme Clark, Damian Roberts, Robin Taylor and Daniel Bainbridge. The 19 Members of the Executive and Audit Committee have various levels of culpability but those who were most verbal in the defence of the cover up were: Robert Knowles, Julia Potts, Mike Band and Jim Edwards and they must be impeached. The 19 Councillors, although they had nothing to do with the incompetent mismanagement that resulted in the fraud, agreed to collude in the cover up because they feared that they may be under a political disadvantage at the Borough Council elections on 7th May 2015. I have asked Robin Pellow to investigate, with a view to interviewing the 19 Members, to assess their individual culpability.

The evidence for my allegations can clearly be read in the enclosed documents which were generated as arguments for a request to Grant Thornton for a Public Interest Report. The documents were written by Hugo Alexander dated 25th April, by myself dated 26th April and by my wife Rosaleen on 28th April, all of which should help you to come to your own conclusion regarding this corrupt episode.

Whatever you decide, something must be done to halt this creeping paralysis of Waverley’s administration. It would of course be far better for all of us if you, as Members, deal with the problem rather than to have Government Inspectors installed.

What has happened should not be political even if so far it has been treated as such. It is up to every honest Councillor to act on his or her own conscience in this matter as this is something that is extremely urgent and must be properly dealt with by those that have the power to do so. You have the power to do so.  

 

Yours Faithfully

Brian Egan

The polite response in several paragraphs from WBC – was, in a nutshell, – shove off!

Can we all commit a planning foul and get away with it?

WW will watch this space to see if enforcement action is taken by “Your Waverley” against “Your Waverley.”

See if it gets a Red card for moving Farnham  footballers?

Place your bets in the comment blue blob at the top of the post page! Screen Shot 2015-12-10 at 13.55.46

We have heard from numerous residents  fuming  at the unnecessary enforcement action taken against them for the most minor infringements of planning control. One of whom built an island in the middle of his Wonersh lake for the ducks to nest, another for a dormer window, another for a stable a couple of inches higher than permitted and so many others we do not have the space to mention. Suffice to say “Your Waverley” is pretty damned sharp at making the voting fodder toe the line!

Taken from the good old Farnham Herald – the paper that keeps a watchful eye on “Your Waverley.” on  behalf of us all!

14316971_10154509312416613_3330770034347646073_n.jpg
And – what’s more it is not the first time that Waverley has “forgotten” to put in planning application before work commences on its own property. There are numerous examples of “Your Waverley” riding roughshod over its own rules! And… Mr Westcott you are absolutely right. The Council had absolutely ‘no intention of returning the changing rooms to the Memorial Hall following the refurbishment. What’s more … it is playing a game of Monopoly with Farnham properties, its residents, its heritage and…worse still its residents personal money and the borough taxpayer’s money!                                                           

Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink! But oh! that stink!

Ye Gods just when you think it can’t get any worse – it just does!

 WHEN WILL SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE,  DO SOMETHING FOR THOSE POOR SOULS  OVER THERE IN CRANLEIGH?

Is there anyone at home at,”Your Waverley” – “Your Thames Water,” Your Surrey County Council,” The Environment Agency, the poo patrol, water wizards … anyone… just anyone?

Last week Thames Water was unloading thousands of bottles of water, bringing in tankers because  2,000 residents were without water due to a series of  damaged water mains. Some were  without water for 24 hours, some even longer. Children were sent home from school because they couldn’t use the loo, and the beleaguered residents of Amlets Lane (you know the one where Cala Homes intends  to build 125 homes) were without power too! No lecky, no water, no hope and no way out, because the traffic hold ups stretched for miles?

It was so bad, according to the natives who contacted us, it  is rumoured that the Flying Dutchman, who lives adjacent to the Cala Homes site in Amlets Lane  has  sold  his nursery site in Elmbridge Road, picked up his clogs and is heading  for his homeland? 

Councillors  refused to give him permission to build 265 homes earlier this year , but  officers have subsequently  included it in… THE  DAFT LOCAL PLAN!   But villagers who worked with him on his “vision” to “help Cranleigh” tell us he was  so  mad at the decision he’s threatened to sell up and  leave the area.

 Why? because all those  other bloody cheeky developers, have been given their permissions. Ungrateful bunch, and after all those years of sitting through  those damned  “secret meetings” he set up for  them all with, borough, county   councillors and planning officers!   And, how did they repay him for  all that hard work,  refused his scheme,   allowed all the rest to take  home the goodies from the party,  including one who is about  to build “much-needed homes for local people” right next door to him! Some people have such a flipping nerve!

OR … Perhaps 

Screen Shot 2016-09-21 at 21.42.13.png

So there we are then – tankers away in the village that has a history of flooding – but not a drop to drink, or flush with. And if that wasn’t bad enough – you couldn’t make it up…because …

Screen Shot 2016-09-21 at 18.30.43.png

this is to-day’s Twitter Storm brewing over  the village dubbed “Poor old Cranleigh.” by “Your Waverley”  that wants  to dump 48% of the borough’s housing over there.   And yes guys and gals – we have heard all the way over here in Farnham that the stink in Cranleigh is as high as a kite! In fact the  smell is currently wafting over our very own   East Street!

And… where are its borough councillors – you know the ones who   created this fine mess? All we can hear is the sound of silence from  four and a loud bellow from one solitary  soul who has been defending Cranleigh from the onward march of developers. Mary Foryszewski, along with her parish council colleagues and the Cranleigh Civic Society, left to   fight Cranleigh’s corner!   

Here’s just some of the Cranleigh mutter! But there’s more, much more!

Screen Shot 2016-09-21 at 18.24.09.pngScreen Shot 2016-09-21 at 18.23.59.png

Care Ashore’s boat launched, again?

Well – why wouldn’t Thakeham Homes be confident of success?

Because everyone else is!

Why? QUITE SIMPLY BECAUSE IF IT DOESN’T MOVE EVERYONE WANTS TO BUILD IN ALFOLD

Over there in the East of the borough planning applications are arriving faster than the first class post.

The scheme mentioned in the article below, (click on the link) for over 400 homes is just part of a Horsham developer Thakeham Homes  cunning plan to dump another load of houses on the Surrey/Sussex border village, doubling its size. Care Ashore, (The Seaman’s Union) who own the site, is  a beleaguered charity struggling for survival on an estate called Springbok, with only bread and dripping to sustain  itself! 

So having been given the thumbs down by “Your Waverley,”  it now intends to go to appeal to the Government claiming the decision was “undemocratic” and “did not reflect the merit of the scheme.”  The firm’s managing director Robert Boughton says he is   “confident” of success.  Well – after all those secret meetings at “Your Waverley” and with the powers that be at No 10, it has to be granted by a Government Inspector – doesn’t it? Why we hear  you ask – because the borough of Waverley still doesn’t have an Adopted  Local Plan!

screen-shot-2016-03-16-at-23-10-00

Other Alfold schemes  in the pipeline include:

Land at Wildwood Golf Club, Horsham Road: Land in Rosemary Lane, Alfold; Land on the A281 at Alfold Crossways; Land at the Medland Garden Centre on the A281 Horsham Road; Land at Dunsfold Road, Alfold; Land adjacent to Chilton Close, Loxwood Rd (52) Land at Chilton Close, rear of the Willows(13) and so it goes on…including homes granted at over 100 soon to be built at Sweeters Copse, Loxwood Road.  So another 400 won’t make much difference?

What  WW can’t help wondering,  is where is all that poo going – into Cranleigh’s Sewage Works and the Cranleigh Waters ? Or will it wing its way into the Flying Scotsman’s shiny new sh*t pit? Or, it could always go to Loxwood – where properties wallowed in the mucky brown stuff during the 2013/14 floods!

Residents have contacted the Waverley Web saying  they have just spotted a green field, without a yellow notice on it! screen-shot-2016-09-08-at-18-07-56

We say : “Not for long.”

16-09-09-confident-of-appeal-success-copy

WW doesnt want to be mischievous… but!

For the benefit  Bramley protestors  and all those other protestors living along the length and breadth of the A281 Guildford to Horsham Road…

The borough of Waverley is not an island… is it?

Because while “Your Waverley” fiddles with its Daft Local Plan causing the borough to quite possibly “burn” “flood” or “wallow in sewage”  over there in Horsham it’s  busy meeting its housing targets and solving its acute housing problem.  Thousands of homes are built, or under construction over the Surrey/Sussex border – and here comes the next wave!

screen-shot-2016-09-17-at-11-24-45

And… what will generate some of that traffic?  Almost 3,000 new homes,  over 500,000 square ft of employment business space and 4,000 jobs opportunities,  and who will fill some of them? Residents  from Waverley/ Guildford and beyond.

 “Your Waverley” could take a great big leaf out of Horsham’s book. It ensures the Infrastructure – massive new foul and surface water drainage schemes; railway stations; education campus, leisure   parks, retail and medical facilities are all  upgraded or provided to meet the growth the Government  expects it to take.

It is not just lobbing development at green fields within villages, that have neither the infrastructure or ability to cope with a large influx of inhabitants. Villages that have overflowing sewers, poor water quality and didleysquat medical facilities.

Waverley’s Local Plan includes a scheme to build  on an airfield.  A recognised Brown Field Site – whose owners  will contribute towards the mitigation measures to improve road junctions, provide its own Sewage Treatment works that doesn’t   discharge  into the polluted Cranleigh Waters! Provide shops, a school, medical facilities, and employment opportunities as well as open spaces for recreation and sport.

But – The Protect ~our -Waverley – Group would prefer to fire up local residents to object to the redevelopment to Dunsfold Airfield ,  or perhaps preferring an airport, or piecemeal  development across the borough’s green fields by developers who will provide minimum improvements to the local infrastructure. Another planning application in for for 42 this week in Dunsfold village. Many hundreds more to come in Alfold/Dunsfold/Cranleigh/Ewhurst/Shamley Green and Bramley!

So… perhaps instead of objecting to Waverley’s Daft Local Plan – they should start objecting to Hampshire’s and Horsham’s? Just a thought – of course we couldn’t possibly comment.

To read the whole plan for almost 3,000 houses plus…. read it for yourself here and click on Our Vision.:` http://landnorthofhorsham.co.uk/news/  Screen Shot 2016-09-17 at 12.08.22.png