There was a little mole and he lived in a hole?

It would appear, whisper who dares, that unbeknown to the general populace,  Protect Our Little Corner of Waverley has just been forced to go back to the High Court Judge before a Judicial Review hearing on 9-10 October. This follows a bit of a setback it endured in the Court of Appeal when large parts of its case for Judicial Review were thrown out!

Screen Shot 2018-09-21 at 18.38.46.png

Just a little recap for anyone who has just landed from the Moon!

Angered by a High Court Judge’s decision at a pre-Judicial Review hearing in the High Court in June when three of its grounds were thrown out for challenging   Waverley’s Local Plan and development at Dunsfold Aerodrome  – POW and The Campaign for the Protection of some parts of Rural England escalated their  case to the Court of Appeal. Now that appeal too has been thrown out – except for one aspect.

But the local Moles have been in touch with us again..!  Haven’t we told you that Waverley Towers and POW are a couple of great big leaky sieves?

This time with the news that POW as sought an emergency hearing prior to the big event in October, to obtain the judge’s assurance that it will not have to dig deeper into its pocket than the £10,000 under the Public Access to  Justice rules called (Aarhus).

In a nutshell that means the worried wealthy’s costs are capped and US, the taxpayers have to spend shedloads of money to defend the Plan to fight off the huge posse of developers lining up out there to throw even more applications at Waverley Planners on the green belt and countryside! 

 POW’s begging bowl goes out tonight?

Screen Shot 2018-09-18 at 13.37.25.png

Apparently with the help of The Surrey Hills Organisation?

Screen Shot 2018-09-18 at 18.45.35.png (Isn’t that an organisation that is part – funded by both Surrey County Council and Waverley Borough Council? Isn’t Shamley Green and Cranleigh’s Councillor Rubber-Band on its Board of Directors? Funny that!

 

Screen Shot 2018-09-19 at 22.32.01.png

Now that the Court of Appeal has dismissed the challenge – it’s up to another High Court Judge to rule on the remaining parts of their case.

Will the Secretary of State’s representatives have to rock up and explain why he allowed the development at Dunsfold – which of course, is what this whole expensive business is all about.  And will the judge rule on Woking’s unmet housing need? Watch this space… 

Anyone out there been to Woking lately? 50 storey blocks going up all over the town! 

 

12 thoughts on “There was a little mole and he lived in a hole?

  1. My, you do suck up anything that is fed to you….unless it doesn’t fit your agenda. Waverley’s mole leaks about their Court case – and you spin it in your usual fashion with scant regard to facts, yet you neglect to even mention the bigger story – the recent ONS data that will reduce the requirement for houses in Waverley by 27%. How selective of you – I wonder why?

    Like

  2. Quite simple really! The WW stands by its view, albeit that others have a different view, that a brownfield site should be developed before our green and pleasant land. Land that is designated as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Area of Great Landscape Value and the Green Belt. Let’s face it POW – your stand has absolutely nothing to do with Protecting Waverley has it? Your organisation (charity?) is all about stopping Dunsfold. So why pretend it is anything else.

    Like

    • Such double standards from you David. You stand by Farnham and to hell with everyone else, as you did for the “Fearless Five” and their JR.. no criticism, vendetta nor defamation from you against them. I don’t see the fearless five standing up for anyone else so why don’t you berate them for being NIMBYs?. I don’t see you doing anything for the Borough – why don’t you stand up and do something for any parts of Waverley. Just what is it you have achieved?

      As for not mentioning the ONS data – how is that not a story for the benefit of all? Unless of course your paymasters at Dunsfold have warned you not to mention it… or CiL. There is no logic to your selective rants…

      Like

  3. We have no issue with a reduction in housing numbers. You just don’t get it, do you? If there is a reduction in Waverley’s housing numbers, then there is absolutely no need to build on the green belt, either in Waverley or in Guildford – is there? There is no need to build all over the countryside is there? The Fearless Five’s JR had nothing whatsoever to do with housing numbers, but an unwanted, scheme to take away amenity spaces, a theatre, a well-loved public house etc to build 28 retail units with the ratepayer’s money? You appear to know nothing about their JR challenge and the reasons why the FF did not get leave to go to JR.
    As for our paymasters, your ignorance and paranoia over the Dunsfold Developer appear more like a personal vendetta than an honest bid to protect the borough, you claim to represent.
    By the way, whose David?

    Like

  4. Pingback: Waverley’s housing​ numbers wrangle goes on and on! | Waverley Web

  5. Ok – OK you win! How did the fundraiser go? The WW popped in, had a drink – nice pub The Sun – nice old fashioned pub, and then crept back into our web. WW waved, but you ignored us.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s