Tonight ​The Milford Golf course development will be agreed on a wing and a prayer.


 In readiness for her swan song performance the head planning honcho at Waverley Towers is already buffing up her boots and inserting new studs to kick another unpopular planning application through the goal posts.  Ok, ok, we know it’s a golf course.

The soon-to-be-replaced Betty Boot, who is shortly leaving to play for the Home team – will provide members of the Joint Planning Committee with a thousand reasons why they should support building on the former Green Belt golf course in Milford. Cover a  floodplain  with concrete and 200 homes – 80 of which will be “affordable.” For whom, they will actually be “affordable,” is anyone’s guess? 

You can read WW’s post on details of the scheme here:

Another slice of Waverley’s former Green Belt – about to bite the dust – as planners get set to change the face of Milford?


 In an up-date sheet added to a 109-page report to be presented to the committee – she says there are changes:

Page 75 – In regard to the test set out in Paragraph 55 of the Habitats regulations relating to the granting of a protected species licence.  To clarify, Natural England as the relevant licencing body will apply these tests when determining a licence application. As per relevant and established case law, it is not for Officers or members to carry out its own shadow assessment of this test when determining an application for planning permission.  Officers have made Natural England aware of the presence of protected species on this site and have been provided with a copy of Surrey Wildlife Trust’s response to this application. Natural England has not objected to this application and therefore it is considered reasonable for the Council to proceed on the basis that a licence is not unlikely to be granted if permission is approved. Perhaps she hasn’t read the latest Guardian Newspaper article – about which the Waverley Web has spoken to the journalist for confirmation.

PerhapsWaverley Planners should all read this?

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 18.05.02.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-19 at 18.04.41.pngWe will have a bet with you Bett.  Of course, Natural England isn’t going to object because thousands of environmentally important sites across England are coming under threat every day of the week as the government body charged with their care is struggling with understaffing, slashed budgets and increasing workload. 

Natural England has wide-ranging responsibilities protecting and monitoring sensitive sites, including sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) and nature reserves, and advising on the environmental impact of new homes and other developments in the planning stages. Its work includes overseeing national parks, paying farmers to protect biodiversity and areas of huge public concern such as air quality and marine plastic waste.

(Well we all know what is going on in Farnham over the air quality scandal.  One former member of staff has been charged and awaits trial, while her line manager has bug****D off to pastures new and a new plump salary!)

But while the activities of NE are being impaired by severe budget cuts and understaffing, Natural England employees and other interested parties have told the Guardian. “These are fantastically passionate staff who are worried that the environment is being affected so badly by these cuts,” one frontline staff member said.

“There will be no turning back the clock” if we allow sensitive sites to be degraded.

The agency’s budget has been cut by more than half in the past decade, from £242m in 2009-10 to £100m for 2017-18. Staff numbers have been slashed from 2,500 to an estimated 1,500.  But worry not Waverley residents – Waverley Planners are “always satisfied” with the comments made by statutory agencies, including Thames Water and the Environment Agency.

Just like the same Tory-led administration, officers and, some  members. were “perfectly satisfied” with Thakeham Homes scheme to build on a floodplain in Cranleigh. Homes that the Association of British Insurers following a recent meeting at the House of Commons with Ministers, is now considering advising its members – not to insure!! 

Perhaps ‘Your Waverley’ will put that up on its Searches Website for future buyers?


Here’s what one of our followers thinks:

As Harold Wilson didn’t say “a week is a long time in planning”

Last week Guildford was jubilant about the Inspector apparently restoring their Green Belt sites.

Yesterday the Government issued its response on using the 2016 ONS figures and entirely predictably rejected this idea ……..see and various government pages. Make what you will of that.

Then as you say, tonight Waverley Borough Council Joint Planning Committee is racing to decide the fate of the application to build up to 200 houses on part of Milford Golf Course. Once again in Waverley, crucial flood risk assessments have been downgraded to matters to be dealt with AFTER planning is granted even though the Soggy SANG makes the FRA additionally complicated.

On top of that yesterday the Government also finally produced the local authority housing delivery figures ie the number of houses which have actually been built by Local Authority Area. That shows both Guilford and Waverley falling below the 95% mark which means (according to the revised National Planning Policy Framework issued last year) they now have to add a 20% buffer to their five year supply!!! No doubt officers will use that as justification tonight for bullying councillors into consenting to the GC site. That seems to me to be a remarkably stupid thing to do when everybody can see this application is highly likely to get mired in long legal wrangles over the restrictive covenant. That could mean delivery of these 200 houses will be held up for ? up to five years which will obviously have a knock on effect on delivery. But according to officers, the restrictive covenant isn’t a planning matter!

Words (nearly) fail me.

Another slice of Waverley’s former Green Belt – about to bite the dust – as planners ​get set to change​ the face of Milford?





Building on flood plains comes as second nature to ‘Your Waverley’ so it is no surprise that land opposite Milford Golf Course has been earmarked to go under concrete.

The 13.28 hectares of land once reserved for golfers and wildlife – and which served to soak up the Wealden clay groundwater – will,  if the planners have their way Tomorrow WEDNESDAY  – provide 200 new homes – 30% ” affordable.” Unless of course when the scheme reaches the detailed stage the affordable home figure is reduced  – or delayed which is happening elsewhere in the borough!  

 Waverley Planners are between a rock and a pile of concrete,  as a Government Inspector – dragged areas of the borough out of the Green Belt before approving the Daft Local Plan.  These included the villages of Elstead, Chiddingfold, Witley and the part of Milford Golf Course now under consideration. He argued there would be…

 “sufficient infrastructure contributions to mitigate the impact of the development.” He also said: “These contributions towards open space, education and improvements to the Downs Link are made to mitigate the effects of the development.”  So where is the contribution to the Downs Link we wonder? 

Was he thinking of the Community Infrastructure Levy Contribution or the 106 Legal Agreement Contribution? 

Because CIL – TO BE INTRODUCED ON MARCH 1 – would provide 7.5m compared with £1.5m  in 106 contributions – so if ‘YW’ wasn’t in such a rush to cover the borough in concrete Milford villagers would at least have trousered £7.5m the same amount of money as the owners of Milford Golf Course – filling at least a few holes in one!

A jubilant Guildford Borough Council has now had it’s precious Green Belt areas re-instated after the same Government Inspector said theirs must go too.

According to the 109-page report –  residents will be forced to use a Board Walk on stilts America style to be provided by the developers to reach the SANG – (Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace) with their dogs, not on leads but on doggy-stilts! This has to be provided on land in Flood Zone 3 because as it says on the tin – it floods!  These mitigation measures are required on a site within 5km of a SPA – Special Protection Area so you can be sure Cllr Hyman won’t be voting for this one?

Perhaps the homes will be on stilts too – on Flood Plains 1 and, 2. With the green space on Zone 3 and leisure facilities provided in Godalming…more traffic?

But one sentence you will hear repeated over and over again by officers when Stretton Milford Ltd’s scheme is considered by the Joint Planning Committee. The Development will cause…Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 11.27.18.png and:

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 11.23.13 it’s ok to put the SANG in a swamp!

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 11.26.49.png

 Hundreds of objections have poured into Waverley Towers hallowed portals – on everything from the effects on the environment; air quality; traffic congestion; light pollution; flood risk; and the impact on school places – where 1st and middle schools GP surgeries; Dentists and hospital services; are already oversubscribed. 

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 10.53.37.png

So why is Waverley in such a rush – because it admits it has a 5.8-year land supply?  Is it because two recent planning appeals in Farnham have been overturned by the Government because housing supply targets are not being met and Inspectors beg to differ on the land supply?   Developers are slowing down their housebuilding programmes because they can’t sell the homes fast enough.

Is it now a case of …PLANNING BY FEAR? WHICH IS DEVELOPER & GOVERNMENT LED?   So lets all bin the ballot box and give local democracy a decent burial.

Because Waverley will have reached its 11,000 home quota – before 2022 – not 2032 – with some towns and villages reaching their allotted quota already. 

However, you can be assured……. Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 11.23.13

Development should be allowed because of its access to infrastructure – including Milford Railway Station. However, residents claim, the trains have reached the maximum capacity of 12 carriages and the car park cannot cope now, let alone in future,  with cars spewing into Station Road.  And here’s a few more objections on a site which is covered by a Legal Covenant held by a local Solicitor who lives adjacent to the site. A legal matter which could hold up development further?

Screen Shot 2019-02-18 at 10.55.29.png 

What are the pluses: 200 new homes to satisfy the needs of Woking people – 80 of which will be “affordable,”

The price? By destroying  the rural character to the south of Milford?


Council tax going up and up!


Not, however, what you would have heard if you were listening to Waverley’s Budget Meeting last week – as the Tory administration told the world and his wife and children that the borough was safe in its hands. It claimed it had not increased council tax very often during its stewardship.

White man once again speaks with forked tongue?

Roll up – Roll up for ‘Your Waverley’s Annual Budget Show.

Since 1997 council tax in England as a whole has increased by 57% in real terms. You will see from the map below Waverley Borough Council’s council tax has increased by 88.90%. This information has been collected by the Taxpayers’ Alliance and not by us.

Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.46.51.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-02 at 09.30.31.png

This includes payouts to the staff at Waverley and Surrey County Councils.


Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.47.25.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.48.18.png

Screen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.49.03.pngScreen Shot 2019-02-03 at 18.49.54.png

Is Dunsfold Village’s very own Drill or Drop – on its​​ way?


Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 10.43.00.png

UK Oil & Gas plc has given details of a proposed new well site in Surrey.

The company, which is the major investor at the Horse Hill oil site in Surrey, says it is preparing to apply for planning permission for exploration at Dunsfold, home of the famous airfield and Top Gear track.

Both of which have been the subject of numerous posts on this site – in the past, present and no doubt in the future. We at the Waverley Web cannot help wondering if the Protect Our Waverley (POW) gang will be up for yet another fight? 

In a letter to residents, living in the village 8 miles south of Guildford UKOG said it wanted to drill and test a hydrocarbon well, to be called Dunsfold-1. If the well were successful, UKOG said it would drill and test a sidetrack, Dunsfold-1Z.

Villagers have been invited to drop into the Dunsfold Village Hall on Wednesday between 3pm and 7pm to hear the news – and ask questions.

Investigations by the Waverley ‘Web have revealed that exploration for gas occurred in nearby Alfold in the 1990s.

The application will be considered By Surrey County Council.


Screen Shot 2019-02-17 at 10.43.10.png

190215 UKOG Dunsfold plans

Spanish nurses heading home?


Screen Shot 2018-03-05 at 16.54.34

A bitter pill we may have to swallow? 

NHS trusts are at greater risk of losing Spanish nursing staff over other nationalities under a no-deal Brexit, due to a little-known regulatory problem.


At the moment, Spanish nationals can accrue points from their work in Britain that can later be used on Spain’s public health job exchange. But, under a no-deal Brexit, NHS experience will no longer be recognised in Spain.

HSJ understands concerns are growing that Spanish staff are considering returning to their home country, as too long a stay in the UK could jeopardise their job prospects in Spain.

As of June 2018, the latest date at which data was broken down by nationality, Spanish nurses and health visitors make up 17 per cent (3,370) of the EU NHS nurse workforce in June 2018 – the second highest volume of staff from the EU after Ireland.

NHS Employers confirmed that information has been sent to nurses from the Spanish regulator to confirm that Brexit may have “an impact on their continued registration with the Spanish regulator”.

Joan Pons Lapala, a Spanish nurse who came to work in the UK in 2000 and now a clinical fellow at NHS Digital, said  “Potentially we will have a catastrophe here, as potentially no more Spanish nurses [will] come here and the Spanish nurses already here will leave as we will no longer be able to gain points [to use to secure a job back home].

“It’s not a priority to the UK government but it should be as Spain is a main source of nurses and the issue is being overlooked completely. It is a ticking bomb – it is going to happen.”

Mr Pons Lapala added many of his Spanish colleagues had already left the UK to work in Ireland, which he said is now the “number one choice for Spaniards when it used to be England”.

NHS Employers chief executive Danny Mortimer said: “What we clearly need is certainty for our staff and clarity from regulators and professional bodies – and quickly. The future relationship with the EU will need to set out clearly how professional experience gained in the UK might be recognised by EU member states, and vice versa.”

According to board papers published by Bolton Clinical Commissioning Group, its main acute provider Bolton Foundation Trust may lose its Spanish nursing theatre staff because of the regulatory problem.

The papers said: “Spanish nursing regulators have indicated that they will no longer recognise UK nursing experience for Spanish nationals post-Brexit… and this has meant some of our Spanish nurses in theatres have indicated that they are looking to return to Spain this year.”

The board papers said the trust was already advertising the four posts in anticipation of the staff leaving and are in discussion with a further five nurses.

David Hubert, the secretariat of the EU Network of Nurse Regulators, said: “Spain only recognises professional experience for nurses who practice in the EU. As things stand, if/when the UK leaves the European Union it will become a non-EU country and professional experience obtained in the UK henceforth will not be recognised anymore”.

The issue would be delayed if a transition period is secured but any final deal with the EU would need an agreement between the UK’s and Spain’s regulators to continue to allow the system to operate as it currently does.

A House of Commons briefing paper from October 2018 said the overall number of Spanish EU staff working in the NHS had fallen by 15 per cent between June 2016 and June 2018, which was a sharper fall than other nationalities.

The Department of Health and Social Care said: “In the event of a no-deal exit from the EU, we will seek to put in place arrangements to ensure that nursing qualifications and experience gained within the NHS are recognised in EU member states in the same way that they are in other countries”.

The government was also recently criticised for its new immigration scheme. People from the EU who wish to spend more than three years in the UK will now need to make an “application under the new skills-based future immigration system, which will begin from 2021”.

NHS Providers said the proposals “only add to the uncertainty faced by trusts as they look to recruit and retain the EU staff they need”.

With me,​ it’s all​ or nothing – The Bursar of Cranleigh School warns villagers.


Cranleigh Planners – we use the words with a degree of scepticism – as nobody at ‘Your Waverley takes a  jot of notice what the grass-roots of democracy has to say.  Cranleigh Parish Council has objected to 44 homes being built on a vital wedge of countryside separating the settlement of Rowly from Cranleigh. Land that Waverley asked a Government Inspector to include in the Green Belt.

The Bursar of Cranleigh School told Cranleigh Parish Council’s planning committee, in no uncertain terms – that if the school didn’t get the houses – then it won’t be building new sports facilities.

How about that for a threat?

You can’t have one without the other… so the song goes… 

Needless to say, village leaders voted to support the sports facilities off Horseshoe Lane – but not homes across a vital wedge of the countryside. Land that could open the floodgates to further development along Guildford Road, bringing the settlement of Rowly into Cranleigh New Town. Well, you can be sure Cranleigh School will get at least one vote – Councillor Stewart Stennett – who thanks to his Waverley mates – and against officers’ advice,  has already bagged development in the Green Belt on his own land in Guildford Rd.

Residents’ whose homes surround the new paying facilities are objecting to having floodlit fields and running tracks near their homes.

Our followers over there in the East – tell us, the unctuous Martin Bamford “BB” as he is known locally, has gone out of his way to support the building of these homes –  he is after all the local spokesman for everything concerned with expanding Cranleigh in every direction and controlling the Cranleigh Community Board – from which we and many others have been banned.

The seemingly cash-strapped school -(which boasts fees of around £15/20,000 per term) is joining its equally cash-strapped neighbouring centre of excellence at Godalming’s Charterhouse in joining the property game. Well – everyone else is at it- so why not us the say?

Cranleigh School is in line for a contribution to its new sports facilities from section 106 monies provided by Berkeley Homes. Villagers consider that, if they are going to any local schools, perhaps they should be going to public sports facilities and not to those who educate a mere 7% of British children! Ah! but they do say these are community facilities don’t they – the local hoy poly can rent them, as they do if they want to rent the school’s existing facilities. at a price – and when of course its students have no need of them?

It strikes us, reading  Batty’s paean of praise for Cranleigh School‘a registered charity who are not in this for profit, instead of reinvesting monies into facilities … An asset rich, cash poor charity … Our local schools will benefit greatly from access to a new running track and 4G football pitch, with suitably equipped playing field space …

Not to mention his eulogy to his A2 Dominion pal, Andy Cranleafy, ‘the selected developer, A2D, is not only offering 35% affordable housing but is itself an organisation which reinvests its profits into building affordable housing and managing its existing portfolio …’

Isn’t BB  seriously over-egging his pudding? Put a sock in it do. Everyone in the East knows which side your bread pudding’s buttered and, frankly, we’d all prefer it if you sat down and shut up so we don’t have to keep putting up!

Mind you, if the Dunsfold Developer is reading this, maybe he might consider offering BB  a job as his new local PR … because he and his family speak up for anything and everything connected with – Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust; Cranleigh Chamber of Trade; Cranleigh in Bloom; Knowle `Park Initiative; Rowly Centre;  and the Cranleigh Community Board – which now has a rival because he censors contributions and if he doesn’t like them  – he spikes them!! The new board is Called the Cranleigh Community Group – which is championing opening the old Cranleigh Village Day Hospital and Minor Injuries Unit. Rather than a new multi-million-pound PRIVATE nursing home!

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.53.54.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.56.08.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.59.26.pngScreen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.57.44.png

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 13.56.46.png


Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 14.01.08.png

Now here’s an interesting objection from a former Cranleigh School employee – hope his pension’s safe!

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 14.09.23.png

Another little missive.

Screen Shot 2019-01-24 at 14.02.11.png

Please, Sir – we want more?


Out goes the begging bowl – again… Seems to be the order of the day for the borough’s ever-increasing band of wannabe developers. If at first, you succeed – ask for more?

You may recall that the former Westbrook Mills Offices on Borough Rd, Godalming were once in the sighScreen Shot 2019-01-22 at 13.27.43ts of ‘Your Waverley.’ It once had designs on the building in its efforts to either downsize or perhaps join the development game who knows?

Fancy having the first exclusive view of ‘Your Waverley’s’ proposed new offices in Godalming?

However, it was pipped at the post. The new owners bagged the office building, was given permission for 64 flats then 99 flats and now wants to go up in the world by adding another storey and an extra 24 flats, including seven affordable units – (123). Keep going chaps – maybe next time you can make it up to 150 to keep your heads above water in Flood Zone 3. Let’s hope the occupants can too?

But after Waverley’s central planning committee saw what was intended for the site – they likened the design too – ‘ A 1950’s Russian Hospital; and Wandsworth Prison, which would neither do justice to the site near the Lammas lands or to the town of Godalming.

Cllr Stephan Reynolds called in the application to the Central committee to prevent officers granting consent under their delegated powers. Claiming the Government planning rules which now allowed offices to be converted into residential properties was a retrograde one. “In Godalming, we have now lost a lot of good usable office space, which we cannot do anything about” He described the flat roofs of some of the flats as “horrible, an attempt by the developer to make more money.” Others claimed the officers’ recommendation to approve the scheme was contradicted by much of what they had said in their report – about the bulk, height and massing of such a large and prominent building. Cllr Paul Follows wasn’t impressed: He had concerns over flooding and SANGS and said some flats didn’t meet the national minimum space standards. “I happen to live in one of these sort of conversions and it possibly one of the worst places I have ever had to rent.” Not everyone agreed with him. Cllr Anna James said if people wanted to live in little flats it was up to them – but I don’t like the flats roofs – Wandsworth `prison is more attractive.

AfterScreen Shot 2019-02-13 at 19.41.36.png almost every member of the committee had panned the development for 20 minutes – it was unanimously refused.



GodalmingWestbrookMillsItem B1 WA20181524 – Westbrook Mwestbrookmillsfloodills Borough Road Godalming GU7 2AZ

Roll up – Roll up for ‘Your Waverley’s Annual Budget Show.



There was rapturous applause for speakers, and so many pats on the back, you could be forgiven for thinking we weren’t watching Waverley’s Full Council Annual Budget meeting, but the finals of  Strictly Come Dancing!

Perish the thought that the Tory-controlled council would engage in what one councillor described as “cheap election gimmicks” to pass a balanced budget, which preserves community grants; doesn’t increase car parking charges; builds affordable homes; makes efficiencies, and possibly sweeps Godalming High Street clean every morning before 5 a.m? Not forgetting the new Blightwells Yard development that will bring unbelievable riches and prosperity into Farnham.  With lots of new shops and restaurants.

So that’s the good news. What about the bad? Well, council tax will increase year on year from now to the maximum allowed by the Government. Fees and charges are increased, everything from dancing to dying, and if you need anything from the planning department get your wallet out or butt out!!  

Surely that warranted yet another round of applause?

Waverleys very own Umming bird puffed out her ample chest and reminded us all just how fantastic the Tories were handling our borough, and it was only safe in their hands – just in case any of those perishing little upstarts like Farnham Residents or the solitary Liberal Democrat and Independent get any ideas of something different.

Sadly in one sentence, we counted 15 – yes 15 Umms – from Leader The Potty One – but never mind, for a minute there we seriously thought she was going to get a full row of sixes and a standing ovation. 

But then one little upstart – Cllr Paul Follows  piped up saying: 
”I always enjoy a full council. So many councillors I absolutely never see at anything else. Always nice to see what a genuinely ‘representative’ bunch we all are when we are together like this when the decisions we take impact so many…..

Cheeky or what- don’t you know Cllr PF – that they don’t have to rock up like you – because they are Tories and there are lots of them –   Fifty to your Seven! But they are afraid of your popularity – and its beginning to show.

He raced through his 4 minutes believing he would be cut off in his prime saying –

“Like all councils, we face extreme pressure from government austerity policies and also from the near financial implosion of Surrey County Council – itself an exemplar of failure and mismanagement and a body that will almost certainly continue to push services down the locally government food chain without much of its funding – all the while calling it ‘Partnership’. Shocks we are ill prepared for.

The leader of the council mentioned caring Conservatives? We must have cornered the market on that scarce commodity nationwide then. We’ve seen in Waverley, as elsewhere. – an explosion in the use of food banks,  use of the voluntary sector, in the need for debt management services, in poverty and in homelessness. One wonders how many members here have had to make use of these services or be in that position. And how a tax rise might feel to them if they were. It’s not the tax rise I have a problem with (though to me its need is not sufficiently justified). It’s the context that it sits in.

“Officers have done a fantastic job in trying to paper over the cracks – or more accurately the impending fissures – and for one more year prop up the shop.”

A tax rise to keep things just about as they are. Probably the last time they are able to do this – as the medium-term outlook beyond this year looks extremely bleak. As to electoral gimmicks – one might almost imagine that their current political masters have an election to fight this year and are banking on residents not looking beyond this decision and this year.

The portfolio holder has laid the groundwork for that likely future in his speech – and I do not believe services can be maintained without significant changes locally and nationally. I have little confidence in the income streams generating what is forecast. Opposition councillors Cllr McLeod and Cllr. Beaman have highlighted some examples of this.

Breathless as he waited for Farnham’s Gal to bring down the gavel – he thanked officers Graeme Clark and Peter Vickers for discussing the budget in depth and answering his questions.  Thanked  Cllr Beaman for his chairmanship of the recent scrutiny committee that allowed a serious and civilised opportunity for members to discuss the budget in depth. It was at this session that many of my questions were answered but concerns regarding investment forecasts fees and charges remain.

“It was also a shame that only around 25 of 57 councillors attended that meeting – of which I was one of only two of the 10 councillors representing Godalming wards that attended.” 

Ditto the comment we made earlier Cllr Follows – silly boy! He continued to push his luck by asking questions – to which he received no answers. No change there then!

If I may put to the leader the following questions

Last year I asked the leader to demonstrate how you have engaged with your party at Surrey and more importantly in Parliament to challenge their approach? I ask you that again now. As many of you will again stand under its banner in May one assumes you otherwise agree with their austerity and local government policies?

I would also ask you to explain how, with considerable extra weight and reliance put upon our voluntary sector, also largely as a consequence of Conservative policy, you believe they will cope with making do and eventually with not enough?

How will towns such as Godalming benefit from CIL if they have already met their local plan targets? If they will benefit, how will you achieve that without essentially depriving other areas to do so?

And finally, I ask you to confirm the laughable figure of £34k for Brexit preparation and what it will be used for?

To conclude – For the lack of clarity on fees and charges, my concerns re forecasting and frankly due to impending national and Surrey related-issues that will almost certainly scupper this budget – it is my intent not to support this budget- it is premature and too vulnerable to events..”

At which point Fireman Sam Pritchard pulled out his hose and poured it all over Cllr Follows’ Fireworks.

A tad rich considering his attendance record and the fact his ward’s residents call on Cllr Follows for help.

Will ‘Your Waverley’ follow – Follows and answer his questions?


Probably not – so we will answer for them because it’s quite simple really.


Now the towns and villages right across the borough are reaping the rewards of this failed administration as HGV’s pound along their country roads delivering materials onto green fields to build homes most local people cannot afford. It couldn’t produce a Local Plan – which presently resides with the High Court -awaiting a decision on a challenge – and LP Part 2 which has been postponed – for electoral purposes. Mainly because it proposes too many unpopular sites for development in Haslemere.


CIL  replaces the former 106 legal agreements for securing money for improved infrastructure. 


If developers had waited and paid up it may have gone some way towards compensating for the loss of trees, hedgerows, watercourses, wildlife,  open countryside, floodplains and agricultural land from being sacrificed on their alters. But, why would they do that when they are racing towards the finish-line to trouser profits!

At the Full Council meeting, tomorrow Godalming Councillor Paul Follows is demanding answers to the questions laid out below:


Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 21.25.40.pngScreen Shot 2019-02-11 at 21.26.55

Perhaps we could respectfully suggest that it is not the present leader of Waverley Borough Council that should answer his questions – but the previous incumbent – Councillor Robert – Knowless – Member for Haslemere? And, perhaps one or two others should be resurrected or dragged back into the Chamber too? Because they have cost us dearly.

Screen Shot 2019-02-11 at 21.44.13.png

Cranleigh residents ask​: Why are we waiting?



For over 20 years a Cranleigh Charity has been collecting public cash – £1.5m and counting – telling donors they are on the verge of getting a new replacement hospital.

That cunning plan was replaced by a Private Nursing Home – to include 20 community beds for Cranleigh people!

That was scrapped for another cunning plan – a private nursing home with 20 beds for the residents of Guildford & Waverley.

Which was scrapped for more of the same but – with an added health workers hostel for Cranleigh health professionals?  Getting the picture? …. Which was then scrapped to provide accommodation for health workers from anywhere, any time any place?

 Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust issued a joint statement with Surrey County Council and NHS Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group in support of the proposed new nursing home and hostel application which was to have been considered by Waverley Planners on 28th January???

So where is it – Does CVHT have yet another cunning plan up its sleeve?

In the meantime – is Cranleigh Parish Council – which handed its land over to the charity for one pound in return for a playing field (The Bruce McKenzie) surrounded by a ransom strip  – having second thoughts? A scheme which had included safe pathways under planning conditions imposed by Waverley 12 years ago, which were never carried out prompting Waverley to consider either enforcement notice against the charity or closing the pitch down.

 We have heard that one parish councillor, former school teacher Rosemary Burbridge, is stomping around Cranleigh calling her colleagues and the parish clerk, rotten for protecting villagers’ interests whilst at the same time holding her own meetings with the developer. Whilst another borough councillor Deputy Mayor of Waverley announced in pre-election members meeting that she intends to support the nursing home scheme – thereby ruling her self out of the debate altogether. To pre-determine, an application before it is considered is against the Joint Planning Committee’s rules.

Screen Shot 2019-01-15 at 16.33.42.png

The Charity clearly has a beef with the Dunsfold Developer, landing a sly punch to the kidneys in the final paragraph of their report to the Planners:

Saying ‘Previously the CCG has highlighted concerns to Waverley council about affordable housing in relation to the Dunsfold development. We are delighted that the CVHT has had the foresight to include an affordable accommodation block and are confident that this will be made full use and support local delivery of care.’

Considering the Dunsfold Developer was known to be one of the biggest supporters and contributors to CVHT fundraising until it discovered that its generosity was being diverted into the coffers of a private nursing home and not a new replacement Village Hospital they’d been promised, isn’t that’s a bit rich! Particularly when the so-called Charity – is not providing villagers with what it promised on the tin?  A Day Hospital – with services, which now villagers are calling for in the old village hospital?

In the meantime, we have heard from villagers – that they are calling for a public meeting.