How now POW’s (cash) cow?

Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 18.51.12.pngIs the milk about to go sour in POW’s Brown Cow?

Forced to play Russian Roulette with their homes, by the High Court’s refusal to grant them the protection of the Aarhus Convention (People’s Access to Justice) in advance of the Hearing  relating to Waverley’s Housing numbers next week our mole inside the PoW camp tells us),  Protect our Waverley is becoming increasingly desperate in their attempts to avert a potential catastrophe.

Bob Lies and Co’s costs may not be limited to the £10,000 it had hoped under the convention mentioned above, but they will not know until the Judge has ruled on the day.

As our Dunsfold Correspondent points out, this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘Mi casa su casa’! Protect our Little Corner of the Borough has penned yet another open letter to Waverley Borough Council, literally begging it to allow POW to save face:

30th September 2018
Dear Councillor Potts and Mr Horwood


POW is writing to ask you to withdraw the defence of the housing numbers in Part 1 of the Local Plan in the interests of all the residents of the Borough.

Conceding our case will allow WBC to re-calculate the numbers on the basis of the new household projections published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) on 20th September 20181. Barton Willmore has calculated 2, using the new NPPF ‘Standard Method’, that the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for Waverley is 27% lower than the Government’s comparable figure based on 2014 data 3. Over the 19 year Plan period, this equates to a very significant reduction of over 3,000 dwellings.

Furthermore, these calculations show that Woking’s unmet need has disappeared.

You have both claimed that if CPRE and POW succeed in their challenge, then the Local Plan will fall and the protections it provides will be removed. That fear is unfounded.

There is legal precedence that part of a Plan can be changed without affecting the remainder. In the case of William Davis Ltd and Others v Charnwood Borough Council (2017), Gilbart J concluded: “I am not willing to strike down other policies whose provenance was not contested before me. I shall, therefore, limit the relief granted to the quashing of that policy.”
A lower OAN will make it easier to meet the 5 year supply requirement, adding additional protection against unwanted and inappropriate development in the longer term.
WBC must avail itself of this unique opportunity to revise down its housing numbers presented by the High Court Challenges being brought by CPRE and POW, rather than wait until the 5-year review of the Plan in 2023. If it fails to do this, large sections of our beautiful Borough will be ruined by unneeded development – on Green Belt, on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Areas of Great Landscape Value – and future residents will be condemned to live in totally unsustainable locations.

Your duty, as political leader and Chief Executive of Waverley Borough Council respectively, is to protect the interests of Waverley’s residents, now and in the future. You will singularly fail in that duty if you do not take advantage of this unique opportunity to make an early amendment to Part 1 of your Local Plan by conceding the s113 Appeal. The benefits of adopting the reduced quota are significant – both for your Council and your electorate.

Yours sincerely

Bob Lees

cc Uncle Tom Cobbley et al.

Interesting that this missive was penned – no doubt in some haste! – after PoW’s latest Pass-the-Begging-Bowl-Bash at The Sun Inn on Dunsfold Common last week. The Waverley Web attended the event and, bearing in mind the number of cobwebs in the cavernous ceiling of The Sun, Incy-Wincy may well have gone undetected … 

But, given Capt’n Bob is – yet again – appealing to Waverley to surrender to PoW’s bobleesdemands and ditch the High Court battle PoW started (!), we can only assume the Fund Raiser didn’t go too well  and Capt’n Bob is desperate not to have to employ the services of Cranleigh Removals at Casa Lees!

The WW is beginning to feel almost sorry for him. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t!

Scenario 1: He can’t tell the High Court Judge – hand on heart – that he represents the majority of residents in the Borough – as he likes to brag! – if he doesn’t have a bank balance bursting with local residents’ contributions to prove it! After all, where is all this alleged support if the raggle-taggle PoW is surviving hand-to-mouth?

Scenario 2:  On the other hand, if he can and does demonstrate that he’s well funded by his enthusiastic and numerous supporters – rather than just a handful of high-rollers who object to the pollution of their Surrey Hills by an influx of affordable housing for the great unwashed (or, to paraphrase OJ, AKA Charles William Orange Esq of Hascombe Place, who objects to the creation of ‘a sink estate’ on his doorstep at Dunsfold Park) and write big cheques – then why shouldn’t the Judge insist PoW funds its own beef with Waverley BC rather than the Tax Payer having to foot the bill for them?

Oh what a tangled web POW  weaves whilst practising to deceive!


36 thoughts on “How now POW’s (cash) cow?”

  1. Oh WW
    Come on – Be fair – You don’t have to support POW – but IF they can reduce the housing numbers for Waverley and confirm that We do not have to take on Woking’s unmet need then it HAS to be good for the Borough – We have a big enough fight on our hands with the rest of Planning without taking Them down.

    Lots of us NORMAL residents who do not have huge bank balances but care enough about where we live and How we live – would (I am sure) support this.

    If it means the Local Plan remains intact, which gives us something to stop over-development, then I am afraid I think it is a good thing – You don’t have to support POW’s stance on Dunsfold Park – but this isn’t the issue!

    As you will know – even with the protection of the Local Plan – we have 23 new houses happening on Dunsfold Road by Brockhurst Farm, after the appeal (better than it was at 39) Plus whispers that the Wyevale Garden Centre are going to try and sneak in another Application (no doubt on Christmas Day) for 50 odd homes instead of the 10 they were granted.

    And looking at Wildwood….. Wouldn’t surprise me if that became a massive New Development – and I am not talking about the Golf and Hotel. I think the only thing thus far stopping them is that they have taken out a Mortgage which forbids them putting in any sort of Planning Application – For now……………………

    I am not against new houses – I AM against New houses without the Infrastructure to go with it. So when we get a Medical Centre, a train station or a bus service that actually takes people to where they want to go When they want to go (Please do not mention the DP one – as that won’t happen for YEARS) and a New Route to Guildford and the A3 – Then I will happily be in support of these new houses – But until they do that then I am afraid they are wrong.

    SO POW – if you would like to raid my Penny-Jar – please feel free to do so.

  2. Sadly your penny jar may not be enough. But then this isn’t about housing numbers at all. It is about putting a stop to development at Dunsfold Park, isn’t it? POW doesn’t give a toss about where homes go – Brockhurst – Wyvale – Sweeaters Copse – Wildwood, Wrecclesham, – that all come with little or no infrastructure contributions. Or if they go onto Godalming’s green belt or for that matters over the Gostrey Meadows in Farnham – as long as they don’t go on a brownfield site at Dunsfold

    1. So what do you stand for David? You abuse everyone, but achieve nothing. What have you done for anyone from behind your secret keyboard in Hale?

  3. Just back from Cranleigh and driven down Elmbridge Road – What a mess, pot holes everywhere as well as Temp Traffic lights – Now I remember why I hardly ever drive into Cranleigh nowadays. I only went there to visit the Mobile Natwest – I just wasn’t told that they actually couldn’t help me as they have no printing or copying facilities and I had to give them ID – so a waste of over an hour. As I am sure you are aware – Banking facilities in Cranleigh are limited to ONE and I believe that one is going shortly – I know we are becoming more of a Cashless society – But that isn’t necessarily the case for many small retailers and the Elderly. Towns like Godalming and Farnham DO have these facilities as well as relatively simple access to Major A roads – I am afraid I do not consider the A281 to be a Major road.

    Returning home I noticed Thakeham homes are going great guns…. I believe we are due some heavy rain this weekend ……..We live in hope.

    You know my views on Dunsfold Park and I must remind you of the Ancient Woodland they are going to Trash to put the new road in. If I was a true Nimby – I would be glad about that so I don’t have to be woken up at Silly O’clock with the HGVs thundering passed our house on the A281 but I am not.
    We all know that Dunsfold was a decision made by the Wards that didn’t want the housing in their neck of the woods and it was an easy argument to win based on the Colour of the site, with total disregard for the lack of transport infrastructure, medical facilities etc in this part of the Borough. Most of the residents at DP Will need to drive to Cranleigh which is the smallest of the Big Four (being only about 9% of the Population of Waverley ….but growing by the day!) or perhaps they would be willing to negotiate the teeny lanes to get to Godalming!

    Perhaps if Waverley had tried harder to get more for the East of the Borough it may have made DP a less bitter pill to take…But they didn’t and although I know what is in the S106 Agreement, I have issues with the timescales of when any of the supposed Mitigation will actually take place.

    We have seen here on Dunsfold Road that the Proposed Pavements on the road that were promised (and DP stumped up £150,000.00 in 2015 and SCC are sitting on it…) are still being looked at and it is highly unlikely we will see anything until 2019 at the earliest. and that is just a Bally pavement for goodness sakes. I am not blaming DP for this – But we will have the same issues with all the other Infrastructure Improvements in the S106. I have no doubt I will be on my Zimmer frame hailing the Buses by the time they arrive.

    Enough of my rant – It is Friday and must be time for a Sundowner!!

    1. As you say, avoid Cranleigh if you can. Now that the banks have moved to Godalming and Horsham, shops are closing in Cranleigh. These stupid planners have no idea what they are doing to our towns and villages. Roadworks everywhere, water pipes bursting, HGV’s every few minutes on every road in and out of Cranleigh and Cranleigh’s borough councillors voted for this. Let’s hope they will be punished for their actions next May. But we doubt they will have the guts to stand again, now all the damage has been done. Bring it on!
      As for POW – how has it helped Cranleigh?

  4. Fear Not – we’ve just heard that all the anti-Dunsfold brigade just might get their way in the High Court, and housing may be dumped in favour of ??? Plan B.
    And when the people in the East of the borough hear what Plan B is – there could very well be a riot!

    1. Denise – he is playing the PR spin game – as the stakes are higher now, he has been told to “brief against” and create division. He sounds very desperate.

  5. But he does seem to get a lot of Inside Information before anyone else and nothing about Planning decisions in the Borough would surprise me.

    1. You are so right. We get inside information because the residents of Waverley are becoming increasingly concerned at the decisions being made that affect all our lives. In fact, poor decisions that will impact on everyone. At least Denise Wordsworth watches and hears the debate and the decisions that follow. Not in just one small corner of Waverley, but right across the borough. She is absolutely right when she says nothing would surprise her. She may even get her heart’s desire – a railway line, and hopefully a seat?

      1. WW – Do you Honestly think this railway line will happen?? – Of course I would Love Cranleigh to have a Train Station (Not sure if everyone in Cranleigh and Bramley will feel the same) But it would at least ease the pressure on Cranleigh with their thousands of New Residents. But …. and it is a big But – everything I have read seems to say it really isn’t an Option and will potentially be a Red Herring to keep people like me quiet by saying this is “In the Pipeline” but never actually happens – like so many other things that are promised.

        It would ease the pressure on the A281 – But it won’t mitigate all the New Residents at DP having to schlep to Cranleigh to get to the train station…. I am NOT Poo Pooing it – Just want all the facts to be made openly and the reality of this option to be made clear – If it is feasible – what the Timeline would be; are we looking in the next 5 years or 25 Years??? Zimmer frame for Buses is one thing Mobility scooter to the train Station in Cranleigh quite another!!

    2. David does get his briefs very quickly – which means it comes from either WBC and/or Dunsfold Airport Limited. However he is very selective about what he spins (as his tag cloud used to show his fascination with Dunsfold until he doctored it after I outed him). So he’ll not address the Cil, Wisley rejection, Fairoaks nor the benefits of housing data reduced by 27% – all that are bad news for the development at Dunsfold. He can try and disguise his agenda with trying to associate himself with worthy causes – but he achieves nothing. His online abuse fits his mission statement: “what is bad for the East, takes the heat off Farnham so sod the rest of them.” – as you will see in his writing.

  6. Hi Cliff – I don’t care if WW is the Fat Lardy G1t or as I have always suspected a Woman – Anyone that gives as much detail HAS to be a woman – Men don’t do that do they?? Would love to know where “IT” gets the info from – But until we do – I just want the Information that I don’t seem to get from anywhere else….

    I agree posts have always been Farnham-Centric – which as you know annoys the hell out of me – BUT if I get info – from this site that I don’t from YW then I don’t care – I don’t have to like Him/Her/It but at least someone is making waves. There are far too many apathetic people out there and in my View at least I have somewhere to Rant

    My Gut says we WILL get Dunsfold – even if we win the case – Which I think is unlikely given the Government’s stance…. – So best case scenario is 1800 worst I think is 2600 – But is there anything we can do to mitigate it? Can we ask for more – Can we talk to them ? Despite what WW says I Have NEVER had Tea or anything else with them… I just would like to make the best of a bad deal – You guys know more – help the idiots like me

    1. Denise, Mitigation? There is nothing in the pipeline to mitigate the impact of a tsunami of commuters hitting a 10 mile radius from Dunsfold. The developers got off scott free. Tinkering with roundabouts and phasing won’t change the fact that 4000 cars leaving Dunsfold will still be 4000 cars arriving at where-ever they are bound for. There is nothing infrastructure that can change in the fact that Dunsfold is 8 miles from the A3 and the railway. Once they start to build the construction traffic alone will make the current Seige of Cranleigh look small fry. WBC were either fools or just too starry eyed to see the future. If we listen to David/Farnham Society – then they’ll be pushing hard for “4000 and maybe 5000 homes at Dunsfold” – hence the abuse, spin, and spreading of division that shines through everything written here.

      1. But even the Inspector thought 3600 was too much – I am not in favour of this – As I think is fairly obvious – But I think if we lose – we have to make the best of the situation (I wont use the Cockburn – Saying…..) – and I am so sorry to say we have been shafted … so we have to move on and see what is the best we can get for the villages of Alfold & Dunsfold as no matter what the call is it is on the borders of both of our villages and we have the Right to say how it is developed- Don’t we?

    2. You are no idiot Denise, in fact, a lot of what you say we heartily agree with. If Dunsfold Aerodrome had been agreed at the outset, and if a Local Plan had been Prepared and adopted much sooner, Waverley would not now be in the predicament it finds itself.

      Now the East has the worst of both worlds – and thanks to the POW brigade, the misguided souls that they are, have helped to bring this about.

      Now Alfold, Dunsfold, Cranleigh, Ewhurst and all those eastern villages are being buried under concrete – and there are many more to come yet. Get down to Dunsfold and start talking to whoever is in charge, and take a shopping list with you. If we were in our position we would be ensuring, that your villages get something out of the disruption that you may face. However, we are not counting chickens. POw & The CPRE may get their way, so prepare for all those other Alfold sites – e.g. Wildwood – Cox Green’s (two sites) Phase 2 of Sweeters Copse and many others to come forward. Thank you, POW – the neighbourhood you claim you represent will hold you responsible for generations to come.

      As for the A281. Have you seen the approved plans for North Horsham?

  7. Yes Denise, we have all been shafted. That is why residents have had to stand up and say no. It is only now becoming evident in Godalming – with campaign groups springing up to defy Waverley Borough Council’s promiscuity with any developer that’ll promise a PR/ consultation, some road calming bollards, and some unaffordadble affordable houses. The elections are next year, but ousting impotent Councillors is too late.

  8. Denise, The Inspector said that 3600 was too much and that the site was as unsustainable as it was when the previous inspector had rejected it 9 years earlier….but he passed it this time because demand was much greater now…. which has the ultimate irony now the new housing need shows that the data they used was 27% too high!

  9. Dear Denise, I tried to ‘like’ your post of 8 October at 8.00pm but found I couldn’t so I’ve been driven to print!
    Let’s see what tomorrow (i.e. the High Court) brings, but assuming Dunsfold gets the green light for 1800 and the Local Plan stands then it is really important for the local communities around that site start to engage both with Dunsfold and Trinity College College Cambridge (they are now the ultimate landowner) and Waverley to get a properly integrated development. So, if I lived in Alfold I would want to check any proposals for the southern end of Dunsfold Road from the Three Compasses down to Alfold Crossways which I think badly needs a proper pavement/cycle track so that Alfold villagers can safely access and benefit from the facilities which will eventually be located on the Dunsfold site.

    1. Kathy – I know you don’t live in Alfold but you do own 40 acres adjacent the Springbok estate – so Dunsfold Development will certainly enhance your holding won’t it? So could you lead the engagement with Trinity?

      1. Why?
        There is a lot of woodland around there, including presumably woodland owned by PoW supporters probably closer to Dunsfold than mine. Plus of course all the woodland owned by the Forestry Commission. But why would a development at Dunsfold enhance the value of any of the local woodland? It isn’t as though any of it is needed for SANG.

    2. I totally agree with the idea of engaging with the developers but I would leave Waverley out of the initial stages. I did this with a developer which was building on neighbouring fields with some success. Waverley could not have cared less so long as they got their numbers up. They are totally useless and should be replaced – by a unitary authority?

  10. Dear Kathy
    I Know not the easiest site – But so long as it keeps us informed who cares!!

    I too will wait with baited breath…….Well not really I think we are shafted on this so I guess I have come to terms with it.

    We already have Paving PROMISED from DP as part of another application. They HAVE lodged £150K with SCC for paving from Compasses Gate to Alfold Crossways in 2015/16 – and to date nothing has happened beyond SCC enjoying the Interest (Ha!) and looking at the issues/Land ownership etc and saying it will not happen until 2019 at the earliest! That is what frustrates me – NOTHING HAPPENS – in any time Normal people would expect.

    I would love to believe DP are willing to mitigate this and I don’t personally think they want the hassle of 2600 New Homes I think 1800 suits them fine with the additional Business Use – But like many applications Planning Officers PERSUADE Applicants to Up their game as they did with the Development on Land adjacent to Brockhurst Farm (DP’s closest Neighbour) – Which has now been won on appeal for 23 new Homes – I think they originally asked for 26 (could be 29) but were told by Planning Officers to Up their numbers to 49 so they did and lost on Appeal! – What do they know???

    I am afraid I have lost all faith in Our Planning Officers – not only do they have NO LOCAL KNOWLEDGE – But they have no idea of what they are doing half the time and it is embarrassing to watch on the Webcasts – There are constant mistakes in the Papers provided to Councillors as well as Last minute amendments to documentation that no-one has the time to read prior to Planning Meetings. Site visits are more often only a couple of days prior to the Meeting. It is shambolic.

    DP is supposed to provide a Medical Centre – I have seen nothing that indicates it will be a HOSPITAL – so I wouldn’t get my hopes up on that one either – I cannot find anything in the s106 that states WHEN this will be implemented – Just that Marketing must be started in some imaginary timeframe…But no time soon according to TROY who did the report

    IF Dunsfold Park’s Owners – Trinity College had made some sort of effort to engage with the Local community – it may not have got to this stage – But it is Not what TC do – They Build Business Parks and Large residential Developments Primarily in Cambridge but elsewhere too. They have no Interest in what we have here (Or what we DON’T) They too should be taken to account as one of the largest Land owners in the Country after The Church of course! Time for another “Dissolution of the Monasteries” or “Dissolution of Rich- Land Grabbers” is due – Come on Betty II

    If you would like any more info – Do let me know – I have piles on archive

  11. Perhaps the time has come Denise to take up that offer to pop down and have a cup of tea and a slice of cake with the DP brigade and start fighting for Alfold? Unfortunately, you are blessed with a parish council that has, since the outset, battled to prevent DP doing anything on that site. A parish council that when BAe was there, and they said ‘jump’ the parish of Alfoldand Dunsfold asked – “how high.” Sadly, years of insults, years of opposition, whilst at the same time seeking DP’s financial help, may be difficult to overcome. But, if anyone can do it – you can? Try?

  12. Oh WW
    That old thing – I don’t think DP have any real desire for Coffee and cakes with me – I am just a pesky resident of Alfold and I have no effect on what happens – they are much better off schmoozing with people that can help their cause. We never get to see any notes on the DUNSFOLD LIASON GROUP so who knows what goes on behind closed doors!

    If they want to make me happy get the Medical Centre up and running soonest and not some long distance down the line – I go to Loxwood and they are Excellent – But obviously over subscribed. I tried to make an appointment the other week and was given a day a week later – It was only when at the end of the conversation I told them the problem they asked me to call the following morning at 8am – which I did and was seen that day.

    I know a flyover to Guildford is probably “unlikely”… How about a Garden Centre to replace the one we have lost in Alfold and will probably lose in Cranleigh too – Small businesses that support the local community – Not just Storage and freight. There is so much they Could do to engage with the Local villages and improve the dreadful situation in Cranleigh, but you simply don’t hear of anything – so, as far as I and many others feel, it is not a good proposal as it stands. It is up to them to engage with Locals and I hope they do.

    1. Dear Denise,

      I would have to agree a flyover to Guildford is an unrealistic aspiration on your part! However, some sort of ‘mass transportation system’ up the Downslink may not be. I think I am correct in saying the Downslink is still a “designated transport corridor”. From an environmental and carbon reduction perspective optimising these opportunities is very important because while the UK is showing some progress in reducing the carbon in the electricity supply system by introducing renewables it is failing in relation to heat and transport so decarbonising transport needs to become a priority.

      There are some very knowledgeable people around who know a lot more about the potential for the Downslink than I do. They tend to call traditional railways ‘heavy rail’ but there are various other possibilities such as light railway, trams, guided buses etc but aside from raising the finance/capital (which I believe could be dealt with by the private sector) there are some more other problems at the Guildford end with land ownership issues and crossing the main road from Bramley to Guildford. This probably isn’t insoluble but needs political will to solve it which hasn’t been there to date. So good on Councillor Holder for his efforts.

      You also mention the Dunsfold Liaison Group. My understanding is that it has nothing to do with the new development. It’s a long standing group which was created to deal with mainly noise related complaints which tended to arise from track events at the airfield which can be heard from some distance away – but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong about this.

      Finally, there is much more in the way of employment than storage and freight at Dunsfold Aerodrome now. There are already some very high tech companies at Dunsfold which have spun out from Surrey University and the SCC Business Park.


  13. Hi Kathy
    I was Joshing about the Fly-over – Having lived in the Far East for many years it was part and parcel of Transport Infrastructure – I don’t expect it here in Surrey!! I understand about the Land Issues but as you say – It just takes a bit of Thinking out of the Box and recompensing those that will either have to give up land or put up with a New Sustainable transport system – But as ever it is the Time issue – How Long?
    If that is all DP Liaison Group do – they should extend their remit to Include the Development surely? it is in the interests of all that live around it. I have only been here 4 plus years – but the traffic has increased significantly (I know it isn’t all DP) But I now have a Fan on nightly – for white noise and a water feature in an attempt to mitigate it (doesn’t work that well!)

    I am pleased DP have more High Tech Companies now – But in the earlier post I was referring to what was currently proposed in the New Application – which doesn’t seem to have that much

  14. Hi Denise,
    briefly re the high tech – there is a fair amount of commercial building on the site and some of the high tech companies have already been there for some years. Plus it isn’t all in the new application as new commercial build has been steadily coming forward under separate applications and there is no planning issue with that as it is (as you probably know) Waverley’s main site for employment expansion and has been for some years now

  15. As we suggested before. It really is time to visit DP and see for yourself the small and larger businesses operating there. Perhaps the Waverley Web will suggest an Open Day, but so far we have been totally ignored by DP. Not even a snigger.

Leave a Reply

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