Waverley planners are not bats, they are devious, dishonourable​​, and don’t even obey their own YES men/women!


BETTY PUTS THE BOOT IN ON BLIGHTWELLS BATS and the Farnham residents who mourn for the town!

Well, Councillors Follows; Townsend; Hyman and Ward are you going to sit back and accept the duplicity of your planning officers, you know, the ones you employ to do the bidding of the elected representatives of the public?

Didn’t you witness the request by your colleagues on the Joint Planning Committee to add a condition to Crest Nicholsons’s Planning application No  Screen Shot 2018-06-25 at 17.53.11.png

A Condition that would protect the bats in the “Maternity Wing” of Blightwells Cottage and anywhere else on the Farnham East Street site? A CONDITION Not an Informative? An informative that just reminds CNS that it is an offence to disturb protected species under the wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 should a protected species be found during the course of the works!

Stop work?!

Wanna bet no bats will be found there?  But if its alright with Bet the Boot – then its all legal and above board… isn’t it?

It’s official – Waverley Planners have gone Bats!

Screen Shot 2018-06-25 at 17.44.30.png

Screen Shot 2018-07-26 at 16.36.37.png


14 thoughts on “Waverley planners are not bats, they are devious, dishonourable​​, and don’t even obey their own YES men/women!”

  1. Am I missing something here? they make a Condition on the COLOUR of the bat poles….but only an Informative about disturbing Protected Species

  2. Dear WW – just to let you know, following last weeks full council I submitted some questions to the borough officers about brightwells and about planning matters – because basically I am fed up of being in the dark when there are clearly things we are not being told.

    A week later I have heard nothing, and if that is the same this time next week I will be publishing the questions I asked so the public can judge if they were reasonable things to ask and demand answers to.

    This issue on the bats, like many others. – my confidence that things will be enforced is about equal to the confidence I have that evidence being brought before us is the whole truth.

    And yes I agree with the first comment – rediculous that the colour is a condition but the other one is not. If I recall correctly we ‘were not empowered to condition a reminder to obey extant legislation’ – or something to that effect.

    1. Frankly all I want is clarification regarding all the things I am told on and offline about this project. None of it sits well with me at all, even as a new councillor.

    2. Keeping you, and others in the dark is all part of ‘Your Waverley’s cunning plan. It has been treating us all like mushrooms and throwing a bucket of the sticky brown stuff over us for years. They have ridiculed anyone and everyone who attempts to challenge or question their god given edicts. We all know they pay scant regard to the law, planning or environmental.
      We, the long-suffering public are treated as voting fodder, and now you THE OPPOSITION will have to fight for the answers to the questions you have posed.until that is, like others you give up?
      Now the Webmaster is back from his fishing trip we will find your questions and plaster them all over the Waverley Web! The public is behind you Councillor Follows. Of course, the council was empowered to condition a reminder to obey the rules. But SHE, who must be obeyed – didn’t want to. Crest Nicholson can do whatever they like they are THE WAVERLEY “UNTOUCHABLES” – ask the CEO Patrick Bergin, whose head was last seen up Preposterous Potts backside!

      Please God let there be others out there to Follow Follows next May!

  3. East Street is a financial disaster otherwise Surrey CC wouldn’t have gambled £50 million of taxpayers. What idiot now invests in retail especially where traffics’ atmospheric pollution levels are dangerous and unlawful? Other than Local Government such financial incompetence would have been considered gross negligence.

    1. Ah! but this is SURREY – and our local authorities can do just what the hell they like – when everyone starts to feel the cold steel of Council cuts – then they may start thinking about which ballot box they drop their votes into.

  4. Hi WW
    As you know I usually take the time to watch the Webcasts before I spout off – But realised I hadn’t watched the 13th June JPC as I was on holibobs – Doesn’t normally stop me – But in fairness to Farnham – I think I had developed Brightwells-Fatigue – which is terrible of me… and by all means berate me for being East-Centric!!!

    I have now watched the meeting – What a SHOCKER! poor Cllrs, Hyman, Follows and Townsend Their questions were not adequately answered and the Officers just came back with the same-old same-old – ie The Licence doesn’t allow CN to demolish Maternity Roosts. But if it is a fact that they exist in the Cottage and they plan to demolish it then it is a bit late isn’t it? It will end up being a Whoops-moment…….

    Why the Officers couldn’t just allow a deferral until a Proper assessment of the site was completed (maybe take a week or so) is beyond me. I was hugely disappointed in Cllr. Goodridge’s amendment – it has NO TEETH

    I am sorry that only 3 of the councillors opposed this. I think it shows a complete disregard for the environment and all protected species. As for the Officers – I think as far as they are concerned conversations like this are a waste of their time – after all what are a few Maternal Bat roosts in the scale of things?

    I for one would welcome the Farnham Bats to Alfold I would happily have a Bat Hut in my garden – so if there is a spare going Officers – Do send it my way – However I do not want one of those Ghastly Bat Poles – REALLY

    PS if anyone else is suffering from the Population explosion of flies this summer – think about getting bats!

  5. Why the surprise about Lizzy not caring about the bats when it suits the needs of Gone to Potts? If on the other hand you wanted to improve the small island in the middle of your lake then
    Enforcement will come after you twice and when you win the appeal and are awarded costs they won’t pay them. If you have a 4ft drop outside your kitchen door tough! Double standards run rife in this planning department and being economical with the truth is their byword.

    1. Rosaleen – I am always surprised – Because I believe in the Goodness of people – Waverley Planners however have changed my mind forever- They care nothing for the Borough so long as they fulfil their targets and steer the Council towards the area of least resistance.

      Their Legal-Eagle – justifies his existence by mumbling his way through reams of Legal jargon and certain Councillors (who I will not mention) are determined to silence argument by interrupting genuine debate with their Anal comments about the colour of the Bat Boxes – She may no longer be Vice Chair but is determined to maintain Control with the Officers
      This is why people switch off!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.