Another one bites the dust!

Godalming Mayor and Waverley Borough Councillor Resigns for ‘personal reasons.’

Couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the decision of Godalming Town Council to dispense with planning meetings in future, and the possibility of  ‘Your Waverley’s’ Local Plan  doing away with the Green Belt around the town and building all over Ockford Ridge? Could it?

Why the hell can’t our elected representatives tell us WHY our votes were wasted in Godalming – Haslemere – Farnham – Cranleigh and all those other towns and parishes which are presently imploding due to resignations! Some councils bear no resemblance to those set up three years ago at the local elections. Roll on 2019 – there could be trouble ahead!

Screen Shot 2017-10-30 at 15.10.14.png

This is our last weekend post! While we were writing this Simon Thornton was resigning and the chairman of Cranleigh parish council was fighting to hang on to her chairmanship after Guildford Conservatives said they wanted her OUT!

The Waverley Web hit a nerve with our post yesterday and some of the comments we received prompted  us into thinking about the people who currently represent us on our town, borough and parish councils.

Here’s the post. May be, just may be we won’t need to elect anyone to represent us at ‘Your Waverley’ in the future?

According to  our followers holding planning meetings has all become too much for councillors in Godalming.

‘ A little birdie tells me, that after the 2015 election Town Councillors’ attendance plummeted. They abolished the Planning Committee to reduce the number of meetings they had to attend.’

We also understand there has been a bit of a spat in Haslemere – where three councillors resigned, and in  Alfold, where not a single parish councillor turned out to attend a planning inquiry when e a Government Inspector was asked to consider Thakeham Homes appeal to build almost 600 homes on the Springbok Estate, more than doubling the size of the village!vA decision is expected very soon.

It is not unusual for at least one-third of the members of Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee not to turn up – and attendance at many other committees in and around the borough are also falling.

Starring  ‘The Newby’, councillor from Ewhurst. Presumably she couldn’t get a seat there?

There have been so many resignations in the ‘new town’ council that it’s like a scene from the film, Revolving Doors!

 Newby Angela Richardson,  only recently – very recently – helicoptered in as a  parish councillor,  had the cheek to challenge the authority of Council Chairman   Councillor Mary Foryszewski calling for a vote of no confidence in Mrs F.

Who the hell does she think she is? The woman is barely out of her trainer pants as a parish councillor and already she’s throwing her toys out of the playpen on behalf of the Guildford Tor branch! A little more respect, please, Councillor Richardson, for those who’ve been there, seen it, done it and have the scars to prove it! And, all this angst from someone who lives in Ewhurst! How did that come about?

Apparently over there in the East it is the local Conservative branch that rules the roost and said Richardson is  Anne Milton’s stooge.

Angela, who likes to boast she has a background in Investment Banking Operations – so did Andrea Leadsome and we all know how that turned out! – only moved to the area eight years ago, whereas Councillor Foryszewski has been a Waverley resident for 17 years and a borough councillor for eight, or is it more?

But Councillor Foryszewski – AKA ‘The Gob’ on account of her Brummy accent and refusal to be quashed by anyone (and, boy, have they tried!) is more than a match for Newby.

The mutter on the party grapevine is that Anne Milton, in Henry II mode, flew into a panic, when her funding was threatened by the Cash & Clout brigade, over her abject failure to get Councillor Foryszewski and the Cranleigh renegades to tow the party line in relation to no development at Dunsfold, uttered the fatal words, “Who will rid me of this [meddlesome woman]?” On hearing this, Angela, who has a flair for amateur dramatics and is a loyal supporter of Mistress Milton – whom she hopes to supplant one day in the not too distant future – sprung into action and, launched her first salvo in what she expects to be a short and bloodless coup.

All we can say is watch your back Mistress Milton for, as sure as eggs is eggs, what goes around comes around! Your turn next …

The Newby, Cranleigh’s answer to Angela Merkel, has her set her sights on your seat and she thinks she’s on the fast-track:

1. Next stop Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council – once she’s ousted Councillor F?
2. Next step Surrey County Council – she’ll have no trouble routing the dull-as-ditch-water Andrew Povey
3. Then, before you know it, she’ll be stepping into your shoes in the parliamentary ring.

OK, they’re not as pretty as Theresa May’s R&B kitten heels but given The Newby’s penchant for stabbing her so-called colleagues in the back no doubt Councillor Richardson prefers killer heels!

We’ve heard the locals are saying – Come back Dom McAll, all is forgiven!

May be, just may be we won’t need to elect anyone to represent us at ‘Your Waverley’ in the future?

May be, just may be we won’t need to elect anyone to represent us at ‘Your Waverley’ in the future?

Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 10.20.29.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 10.20.46.png


If these recommendations are adopted the gentleman on the far left – Councillor Kevin Deanus – won’t get a say in what happens in his village!

In a  report, written by the former policy chairman of the City of London Corporation, Sir Mark Boleat, Chairman of The Housing & Finance Institute, has called  for a radical planning shake-up to solve the  housing crisis.
A key recommendation is to “change radically the planning system to ensure the bias against development is significantly reduced.”

The report says that elected members “are often put in a near-impossible position” in that they “have been elected and need to be re-elected and therefore are responsive to their electorates, who invariably are opposed to developments.”

It says that it “would be more sensible for the decision to be taken by a panel excluding the local members on the grounds that they are conflicted”.

“Those members would be able to have their say to the panel, properly representing the views of their constituents,” the report says, “but it would be for the panel to decide.”

The document claims  that  “many councillors would welcome such an approach, as all too often they feel they need to be seen to be supporting the prevailing vocal view even if they know that a development is desirable”.

Other recommendations include:

  •  There should be a review of policy on green belt land “such that land that does not meet the popular view of what the green belt is (that is green space accessible by the public) and that is not needed to prevent urban sprawl can be considered for housing use”.
  • Higher densities should be allowed, particularly in central London. The report says that “this does not mean low quality high rise flats – such as were built in the 1960s. It can mean for example more terraced housing, five or six stories in height, similar to much of the housing in Paris”.
  • The section 106 viability assessment process should be simplified. “The current system leads to expensive and time consuming negotiations that can leave everyone dissatisfied.”
  • Planning conditions should be “reduced significantly, costed and deemed to be discharged within seven days of certification by the developer, unless the local authority has clear evidence that the conditions have not been complied with”.

What does C.P.R.E actually stand for, and is Chris Budgen betraying the residents of Waverley?

We here at the Waverley Web are a complete mixtures of ages, gender, and political allegiance and are generally quite a cynical bunch.

Trawling through the Campaign For The Preservation of Rural England website had  us scratching our heads, and under our armpits, with disbelief and we think we have worked out what the initials actually stand for.

Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 15.15.23.png

We’ve said it before and, no doubt, we’ll say it again but

One could be forgiven for thinking that the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) has, under the aegis of Chris Budgen, Joint Vice Chairman of CPRE Surrey Waverley District, changed its name to the Campaign for the Prevention of Redevelopment of Everywhere.

On its national website CPRE makes the following statements

• ‘Brownfield land could provide one million homes’ … but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

• ‘We don’t need to sacrifice the countryside when we have brownfield land in our towns and cities that could provide housing’but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

‘Our research, ‘From wasted spaces to living spaces’, found that local authorities have identified enough brownfield land for at least 960,000 homes’ ... but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

• ‘Most recently, we analysed the results of a pilot study into the development of Brownfield Registers. We extrapolated the results from 53 local authorities which suggest that there is space for at least 1 million new homes on brownfield – the equivalent of at least four years supply of housing. This could save thousands of acres of beautiful countryside being lost forever’ but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

• ‘We could make more efficient use of existing sites, for example, by building mixed-use developments’ but at a local level Chris Budgen insists they cannot be built at Dunsfold Park

• ‘We believe the Government should do more to encourage brownfield redevelopment’ but at a local level Chris Budgen insists this shouldn’t include Dunsfold Park
• ‘Local councils and the Government must refuse permission for greenfield sites where there are suitable brownfield sites available’ but at a local level Chris Budgen is only interested in blocking development at Dunsfold Park, but is silent on the countryside being developed -even flood plains!
• ‘Guide local authorities to identify suitable brownfield sites’ but at a local level Chris Budgen insists Dunsfold Park shouldn’t be included

Can someone please explain to us why Mr Budgen’s masters at CPRE  preach the gospel in favour of brownfield development whilst their acolyte is so far off-message he’s not reading from the same book let alone on the same page?

One could be forgiven for thinking that CPRE has failed to bring Chris Budgen to heel for reasons none other than naked greed. If the man had cosied up any closer to the Cash & Clout Brigade – AKA Protect our Little Corner of Waverley – at the recent Public Inquiry into Dunsfold Park’s latest planning application to build houses on the former aerodrome he’d have been sitting on Bob Lies’ knee!

Perhaps  CCB  see CPRE as its plaything, an organisation that exists merely to provide flunkeys – in the shape of Chris Budgen, Tim Harrold, Anthony Isaacs and Colin Hall – to do their bidding because it sounds so much better if CPRE, a nationally recognised institution, is objecting to development than a group of over-privileged NIMBYs, wielding their cheque books like sabres in order to gain clout. KERCHING!

When and how did CPRE Surrey Waverley District become so distant from CPRE nationally?  Does CPRE at a national level realise how their colleagues in the Waverley District are bringing the entire organisation into disrepute?

We thought CPRE was  a serious organisation and  above the pressures of electoral accountability and financial grasping. We undestand from our Cranleigh followers that  Chris Budgen has a personal axe to grind: his family were formerly tenant farmers of the land that now forms part of Dunsfold Aerodrome and both he and his father were employees of Skyways, Hawker Aviation, Hawker Siddeley and BAE but is one man’s sentimentality really enough to fly in the face of the organisation’s oft repeated policy and mantra?

The more we learn of CPRE SWD’s behaviour, the more it stinks! And the more its regional acolytes betray the fine principles of the national organisation the more it becomes glaringly apparent that CPRE SWD  is an embarrassment and a stain on the wider organisation. They need dismantling.

The only excuse for CPRE (SWD)  to object to development on the largest brownfield site in the borough – whilst greenfield sites are being concreted over on an ever increasing scale – is that it’s lost sight of its raison d’etre and is being influenced by those who can contribute to its coffers – he who pays the piper and all that! – when on their own website they are saying:

‘… our latest research reveals that 425,000 houses are planned for protected green fields around many of our towns and cities: a rise of 400% in 5 years. This is the biggest year-on-year increase in proposed development on the Green Belt in two decades.

There is a much better alternative

New housing does not need to be built on treasured Green Belt to provide the affordable homes people need. We have demonstrated there is enough brownfield land available in England to build 1.4 million new homes without taking chunks out of our Green Belt.

Seriously – you couldn’t make it up!

Is another Waverley councillor saying, ‘if you can’t beat them, join them?’

He’s not the first  among ‘Your Waverley’ councillors to join the cash and clout brigade.

Screen Shot 2017-10-24 at 20.56.21.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-24 at 20.56.36.png

and here’s a response a resident received after he had made a complaint!

Dear Ms McQuillan,

A ‘Monitoring’ process which does not investigate information provided anonymously is not fit for purpose and must surely be in direct conflict with the council’s whistleblowing policy?

As I hope you can appreciate, I am not willing to have my identity disclosed to Mr Reynolds as this may prejudice any future planning applications I choose to make.

The Monitoring Officer can easily verify the facts I have reported:

(1) Councillor Reynolds made in a public forum (Facebook) touting for a building plot which was seen by thousands of local residents, including fellow councillors.

(2) Councillor Reynolds has not declared an interest in property development in the WBC register of interests.

The Monitoring Officer should recognise there is a potential breach of the Localism Act which they are duty bound to investigate now it has been brought to their attention.

Your sincerely,

‘A concerned Waverley resident’

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017, MonitoringOfficer <> wrote:
Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email. The Council takes complaints about the conduct of councillors very seriously and considers each one in accordance with its arrangements for dealing with complaints, which are available on our website. The arrangements set out the criteria against which all complaints are considered to assess whether they are valid complaints. Unfortunately, complaints which are submitted anonymously are not normally investigated.

I would be very grateful, therefore, if you could indicate whether you are willing to make your identity known, and if so, would you also be willing for the councillor concerned to be made aware of your identity? Without this, the Monitoring Officer may be unable to investigate the complaint in accordance with the Council’s process. If you have a particular reason why you wish to remain anonymous, the Monitoring Officer is willing to consider this.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards, Emma

Emma McQuillan Democratic Services Manager (Deputy Monitoring Officer)Policy and Governance Direct Line: 01483 523351

You can’t fool me Comrade…


Here’s a comment on one we made earlier.



‘Oh Patsy’ – you are awful… but I like you!







And here’s a comment from one of our Farnham followers…

Who is … ‘The Controller’ of our borough, town and parish councils?

I feel with Christmas all too close, there is room for a black pantomime. It stars Prince Jeremy Hunt who is becoming unpopular with his serfs because his long promised pedestrianisation scheme has not materialised. In comes Fat Fairy Frost to announce that their have been a number of nasty accidents in a far flung corner of his Kingdom called Wrecclesham. The Yokels are calling for a bypass. A group of yokels, the Wrecclesham Residents Association, have worked with the local barons, chancellors and SCC to develop plans, costings etc for forty years and to get it to the top of Farnham’s road list and Prince Jeremy has ignored them since he took over the kingdom. So Fat Fairy Frost and Prince Jeremy scheme together, in secret, to set up a meeting of the Wrecclesham Residents not realising that there was one already. They do not contact the yokels to find out what has already been done. It is a big meeting with Fairy Frost, Prince Jeremy and several of their henchmen taking the lead but the yokels are restricted to short questions and no statements. Suddenly a name change, their group becomes Wrecclesham Village Voices. Could someone have told them that Wrecclesham Residents already exists.
Now Wrecclesham needs a bypass and doesn’t much care how they get it, but we will have to wait patiently for the outcome. Can Prince Jeremy and Fat Fairy Frost do it or will it meet the same fate as the pedestrianisation scheme?



Ignored by ‘Your Waverley’ but Thames Water is forced to recognise there IS a problem with blue asbestos in the East’s water supply!


How does the old adage go:

Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 10.40.16.png


After a long DAVID & GOLIATH type fight by Cranleigh Civic Society, Thames Water has agreed to start replacing Cranleigh’s  asbestos cement drinking water pipes starting in 2018.

Recently one of its members/parish councillor was hauled in front of ‘Your Waverley’s monitoring officer accused of  ‘bullying planning officers’, yes ‘bullying’ and there were we thinking that most of the bully-boy tactics come from Chairman Mao and Liz the Biz – the shove and shunt brigade whose mission is to cover the countryside in concrete, because they couldn’t come up with a LOCAL PLAN!

We don’t actually know how the smack and slap brigade led by Little Hitler – Robin  Taylor punished Brian Freestone, but no doubt someone will tell us sooner or later at …

According to the CCS –

29.6% of the drinking water pipes are old and made from asbestos cement (compared to an average throughout SE England of just 2%).  The design life of these pipes is 50 to 70 years, and as some of these were installed in the early 1960’s, they are starting to decay and burst.

In fact they’ve been busting with monotonous regularity now new developments have commenced.

For almost a year the Society has been banging on about the problems and meeting with Thames Water, to no avail finally Thames Water  carried out tests on samples of burst pipes to determine the composition of the materials used. 

WHAT DID THEY FIND? Yes – you guessed!

 A mixture of white and blue asbestos  …

and,  now ,Thames Water has announced that it will start a programme of replacement in Spring 2018 (they will need the time between now and then for planning and to seek the licences required.

Cranleigh Civic Society says: ‘it is grateful to Thames Water who have been open and helpful in giving advice, and also to them for carrying out tests on the samples of burst pipe.  On the 9th October, Thames Water told us that they have identified over 3 km of pipes to replace, and we are awaiting confirmation from them as to how much of our old asbestos cement network that accounts for, and over what period of time the replacement programme will take place.

Thames Water has advised that it has secured the funding for this project, which comes out of central pot and will not impact on bills locally.

New housing being built in Cranleigh must comply with current Building Regulations that require a minimum 1 bar drinking water pressure provision.  This is because many new houses nowadays are provided with unvented hot water systems, which work on higher pressure than the old “indirect” systems based on a header tank in the attic space.  Over the past three months the number of burst water pipes has increased considerably with over 20 bursts occurring, some leaving residents without water for days at a time.  This has coincided with the building of new housing estates in the village.

‘It is Cranleigh Civic Society’s opinion  that if more new housing estates are connected onto the existing network before Thames Water has finished replacing the old asbestos cement pipes, the number of bursts will increase exponentially, and could raise the risk of more free asbestos fibres entering the drinking water network’.

We think these old asbestos cement pipes in the Cranleigh area should be replaced BEFORE more new houses are connected to the network.

Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 10.43.26.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-23 at 22.13.04.png

Thames Water advised Cranleigh Civic Society on the 20th October that the 3km of asbestos cement pipe that they are replacing in Cranleigh is only one fifth of the total length of the asbestos pipes in the village.

That means that Cranleigh will still have 12km of very old, decaying asbestos cement (AC) drinking water pipes operational in the drinking water network.

Cranleigh Civic Society has written several times to the Government’s Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) asking them to confirm that these old pipes will not be a risk to the health of Cranleigh residents, and we have not received reassurance from them.

The position of Cranleigh Civic Society remains unequivocal. 

We think these very old AC pipes in the Cranleigh area should all be replaced BEFORE any new houses are connected to the network.  We think that the infrastructure should be sorted out by Waverley Borough Council first, particularly in this case where, we believe, it cannot be ruled out that there is a clear and present danger to public health.

Who is … ‘The Controller’ of our borough, town and parish councils?


Without a doubt, and with every day that passes, ‘The Controller’ of ‘Your Waverley,’ and its town and parish councils it is The South West Surrey, & Guildford Conservative Associations.

So much power do they now exert over our lives, that regardless of how much residents’ rant about the decisions they believe are made by their elected representatives, the real power behind Waverley’s thrones now lies  in the hands of officers of the two powerful Tory associations, and the MP’s who pull their strings – Anne Milton and Jeremy Shunt!

No longer do our borough, parish and town councils run their day-to-day business through open and transparent debate, and collective responsibility, the whip hand is held by the Dynamic Duo of Milton and SHunt and their respective associations.


Screen Shot 2017-04-02 at 17.53.01
In a couple of backstreet offices in Hindhead and  Guildford – where they fight like rats in a sack, these nerve centres rule even our  most minor parishes. It is there that  the fate of their members and their roles ARE decided. And there were we, the voting fodder, believing that our borough, town and parish councils, determined their own fate, chose their own leaders, and made their own decisions unfettered by POLITICS WITH A BIG P.

Sadly this is no longer the case!  In the good old days, it was the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker,  independent of political control, who served  one master –  US the people who elected them.  That day has now long gone.

 POLITICS is King and The Controller – has truly arrived.

So just remember when you next go to the ballot box and vote Conservative – they will thank you afterwards for your vote in all the local papers – and then tell you to get stuffed – and do it their way!  

What chance housing at Dunsfold now?

Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 13.11.47.png

The vast majority of recent ministerial decisions on using appeals have been in TORY seats and an appreciable proportion are being REFUSED against inspector’s advice, research shows. In other words decision being made are not PLANNING DECISIONS BUT POLITICAL DECISIONS!

According to research carried out by law firm Irwin Mitchell, 64 of the 69 decisions called-in applications or recovered appeals involving housing proposals issued in communities secretary Sajid Javid’s name since he took office last June involved sites in Conservative constituencies. “That’s a pretty amazing statistic, given the Tories have only 56 per cent of English MPs,” said Irwin Mitchell planning partner Carl Dyer.

The research, published recently, also highlights 14 cases involving some 2,500 homes in which Javid refused permission against inspectors’ recommendations. All but one were in Tory-held constituencies. The exception was Speaker John Bercow’s Buckingham constituency, where plans for 130 homes were refused in July following a call-in inquiry. “If the system is leading to the secretary of state looking more closely at his supporters’ seats, that issue will continue to influence his successors until it is addressed,” said Dyer.

Closer analysis of the figures shows that those 2,500 homes accounted for around 15 per cent of the total units proposed in schemes decided by Javid. During his tenure, he has endorsed inspectors’ recommendations to refuse 25 schemes collectively comprising around 6,000 homes but approved 28 schemes providing more than 8,000 units. In only two cases, including a 750-home development in Lichfield approved this February, has he gone against an inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission.

Dyer voiced frustration at growing ministerial intervention on housing schemes since the 2015 election. He suggested that the recovery threshold for ministerial intervention, currently set at 150 units outside neighbourhood plan areas, should be raised to something like 1,000 homes: “Below that, the government should leave well alone,” he said.

Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 13.16.06.png

Conflict with emerging or adopted neighbourhood development plans (NDPs) featured in eight of the 14 schemes refused against inspectors’ advice. “It appears that the secretary of state is giving more weight than his inspectors to neighbourhood plans. These are certainly more popular in the south of England, where the Conservatives have more seats. It’s crazy that ministers are getting involved in schemes of a few dozen homes,” said Dyer.

The high percentage of decisions in Conservative seats is a function of England’s political geography and the significant weight the government attaches to NDPs, said Matthew Spry, senior director at consultancy Lichfields. “Conservative seats are focused more in rural areas, so it’s more likely they will encounter greenfield schemes that attract call-in or recovery. It’s the same with NDPs – 79 per cent of made neighbourhood plans are in Conservative-controlled councils, but these make up only 54 per cent of all councils.”

David Bainbridge, a planning partner at consultants Bidwells, pointed to a correlation between high housing demand, constrained land supply and political governance. “Conservative controlled councils in the South East and East of England are subject to significant growth pressures.” In that event, he said, “the more vocal and motivated opposition will use political connections to assist their case”. He added: “If local politicians support the proposed development, ministerial intervention is less likely. But many of us have the feeling that more appeals are recovered, or at least that more are refused, in the run-up to a general election.”

Simon Neate, a director at consultancy Indigo Planning, said the preponderance of ministerial interventions in Tory seats revealed by the Irwin Mitchell research is probably due to better links between residents and their MPs and ministers in rural or semi-rural areas with environmental and landscape protection. “Conservative-minded people are likely to be conservative in other respects and more likely to object. Attractive places attract civic-minded people anxious to protect local amenities and often well equipped to do something about it,” he said.

Commenting on the key findings from the Irwin Mitchell study, a Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “The secretary of state, in considering called-in applications and recovered appeals, will always focus on the merits of the individual cases before making a decision, having full regard to the inspector’s report. His role is to reach a view based upon his consideration of the facts.”
Separate research by Indigo presented at last week’s Planning for Housing conference, organised by Planning, indicates that the proportion of appeals dismissed where councils could show a five-year land supply increased from 14 per cent in January 2016 to 25 per cent this August. The research also revealed that the overall number of homes allowed on appeal decreased from 34,000 in 2015/16 to 28,000 in 2016/17, with a further drop predicted in 2017/18. But Neate said this was “more than compensated for” by a rise in the number of homes approved by local authorities. The DCLG has been approached for a statement.

Needless to say, one has not been forthcoming – ‘surprise, surprise.’

The morale of the tale… more green fields and open countryside going under concrete in the Waverley borough NEAR YOU?
Conservative Councillors can refuse planning applications locally, knowing that their refusal will be overturned on Appeal!


Is the temperature rising – at ‘Your Waverley’?

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 18.52.56.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 20.02.49.png


When is prime agricultural land, not prime agricultural land?


When local authorities agree with each other that they  want to grant planning permission to build on it!

When Guildford councillors overturned their officers’ advice to approve an application to build 254 homes on the Waverley/Guildford border at Tongham, it sent temperatures rising at Waverley judging by Joint Planning Committee Chairman ‘Mao’ aka Peter Isherwood’s puce-face, he looked fit to burst a blood vessel!

Q When is a SANG ( Sustainable access to a natural green space) – not a SANG?

A When it cannot be accessed – from the A331 and the A31, and is isolated?

Guildford councillors’ objections centred around the ‘strain the proposed development would put on the local healthcare system’ and the lack of transport infrastructure in the area? Their decision was prompted by the concerns expressed by the Guildford & Waverley Care Commissioning Group(G&W CCG).

Wow! Who rattled its cage all of a sudden? It has been strangely silent on the question of development in the Waverley Borough, despite thousands of homes having already  been approved adding many more thousands of  extra patients  requiring  healthcare! Is the CCG waking up – at last! Or is it only waking up in Guildford – and not Waverley?

The planning officers led by Liz The Biz recommended approval of the hybrid application, but changed her mind when Guildford councillors said NO.  Never mind the fact that there proposed development would breach the strategic gap between Farnham and Guildford, just a minor difficulty really! Anything goes in Waverley.

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 18.55.38.png

 One of our followers  in the east summed it all up (below) – after  the unanimous decision by Waverley’s JPC to refuse the application to provide  green space on their side of the boundary, to allow the huge development on the Guildford side to go ahead.

P.S. It goes to appeal next week! So watch this space!

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 20.05.55.pngScreen Shot 2017-10-12 at 20.06.11.png

Dumb and Dumber making an ‘ASH’ of it… again?

£27m of the county council’s pension fund invested in tobacco companies – and a £400,000 grant to the Watts Gallery when at the same time  borough councils are forced to kick wardens out of sheltered accommodation, and recycling centres shut their gates to the public – most of the week!

You couldn’t make it up could you? Because it is also promoting The Stop Smoking Campaign throughout the county!

DUMBANDDUMBERAnd now Dumb and Dumber  want everyone in Surrey to write to the Prime Minister to complain about central government funding cuts. The Waverley Web sincerely hopes Theresa May sends them away with a flea in their ears.

Surrey is one of the most prosperous counties  in the country. Its residents pay squillions in taxes, mostly pay for their own elderly care and many provide their own private health-care. The charitable sector is also one of the best funded in the country, and thanks to the generosity of Surrey residents who volunteer and give up many millions of hours of their time – voluntary organisations and the arts continue.

So what the hell is the council doing with our money? Isn’t it time Surrey County Council starts thinking about its  priorities?  

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 21.30.12.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 21.30.55.pngScreen Shot 2017-10-19 at 21.31.24.png