We feel an election​ coming on?​



Here are just a few comments from members of the public in and around The borough of Waverley as the flag is about to signal the start of election frenzy. 



Just a recap to remind everyone in Farnham how the Tories fared in the borough council elections four years ago.

Screen Shot 2017-10-07 at 17.48.45.png

Villagers bemoan the loss of their green fields and countryside, and new properties being squeezed onto flood-prone sites. They put the blame squarely, but perhaps not fairly on its councillors – all of whom are Tories?

Screen Shot 2018-08-07 at 09.38.53.png

Haslemere given a good smack by ‘Your Waverley’s’ iron fist.


You couldn’t Adam and Eve it. The law-abiding good people of Haslemere having decided not to sit idly by and watch their countryside suffer from the onward march of developers. Erect the sign featured below. Then along comes the jobsworths from Waverley and demand its removal – or else!

Because it was – ‘Political Advertising!”

Residents were told they could face a  fine by the Magistrates Court of £2,500 and a daily fine of £250! What is this, the Soviet bloc?

What? Fine and deprive the innocent people of Haslemere of free speech? God help us here at the Waverley Web then, if and when they find us. Jankers for life? Or even worse, tread on our web?

Oh! no… if you want to rule and thrive let a spider run alive?cropped-t2ec16vhjfwffz8rnuyzbsktypsiuq60_59

WHY did this stupid council act in such a draconian way?

SIMPLES… Because residents dared to demonstrate how much they care for their beautiful countryside during an election period. Perish the thought that the voting fodder of Haslemere gives a damn about politics. After all, didn’t they just vote onto the town council a Hindhead Tory despite knowing he insulted the residents of Cranleigh & Ewhurst in his bid to cover their countryside in concrete? The other councillor for Hindhead has gone AWOL!

More prats deserting Waverley’s sinking Tory ship?Will the people of Haslemere vote for more of the same at a Town Council by-election to-day?

If you are a Tory you can put two fingers up to the organisation – and they will make excuses for you?

So why such indecent haste, to use an iron fist to get ‘the offensive’ sign removed? How stupid of ‘Yor Waverley’ to offend every, man, woman and child in True Blue Tory land – just weeks before the election.  Everyone is aware that the Local Plan Part 2 includes several Haslemere sites for development. Including 50 homes in an Area of Great Landscape Value in Scotland Lane. And that it was delayed, by the Tory tossers until after the May election to ensure Haslemere remained True Blue!! Devious or what?

So what excuse did Waverley’s enforcement Wallies give for their draconian action?

“Because Waverley has an obligation to protect the sensitive Waverley environment from indiscriminate and harmful signage.”

Is that the same Waverley we hear you cry, that allowed ancient woodland to be damaged in Farnham in Cranleigh, Dunsfold, and elsewhere across the borough. Who allowed the bats at East Street to be destroyed,  badgers to be drowned in Cranleigh, and has threatened the future of Special Protection Areas, including endangered birdlife by ignoring Environmental Law!!

What a monumental bunch of hypocrites!

Here’s the sign.

Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 20.10.30.png

Residents lining up to take down the offending “political sign” – rather than risk a £2,500 fine and £250 per day! 

Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 20.09.41.png

Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 20.09.10.png


Screen Shot 2019-03-13 at 20.08.23.png

You can upset some of the people, some of the time and get away with it. But, not all of the people all of the time.



Desperate times for the Tories must have arrived in Farnham?


 ‘Your Waverley’  wants to promote…

“A new approach to help us to build community cohesion and create a strong local identity. Engaging with our local communities will be at the forefront of how we will take projects forward, making sure we listen to the voices of the active and articulate, as well as the vulnerable or rarely heard.”


Q: When is a Neighbourhood Plan not a Masterplan?

A: When Farnham Conservatives desperately need Election PR.

Can you believe that Waverley Tories have decided that they need to have a new Masterplan for Farnham! So they have voted themselves another £100,000 for Consultants to come up with a vision for the next 25 years.

Hold on, didn’t the Farnham Town Council just spend £25,000+ on a plan? A plan that went to a referendum – and won a High Court Appeal – for the next 18 years? What Tory twerp thought we really need to cover all this again and in particular the years 2032 – 2039?

When most of us would like some assurances about what will happen next week!!

What else could they come up with to spend a mysterious £250,000 reserve from the Business rate pilot? Farnham Herald reports, rather tartly: “The windfall will, says the council, be used to fund “exciting community-led projects” starting with a Farnham masterplan – “looking at the town in a more joined-up way”, ensuring sites such as Brightwells and the Woolmead “work together sympathetically, with each other and the wider town”. No really! You have to be joking, it is an early April fool surely?

ummingbirdThinking up something nice and fluffy to say ahead of the local elections, Julia Potts Waverley’s very own umming bird came up with this at the Full Council meeting: “This new approach will help us to build community cohesion and create a strong local identity. Engaging with our local communities will be at the forefront of how we will take projects forward, making sure we listen to the voices of the active and articulate, as well as the vulnerable or rarely heard.”

Since when has Waverley managed to build community cohesion in Farnham?!

Well, Waverley’s Chief Executive Tom Horwood has the answer! He gave £98K to his mates at RegenCo “transforming Britain one town at a Time” (The outfit that  worked with him at East Hants to oil the wheel of Whitehill/Borden Masterplan) and call it a Place Shaping Exercise

If you are a Tory you can put two fingers up to the organisation – and they will make excuses for you?




Councillor Christiaan Hesse the Conservative Councillor for Hindhead who hasn’t turned up for a single meeting for the past six months, was warned after four months and did not respond.  Perhaps the voting fodder of Hindhead might think more carefully before they elect their next representative?


Although we reported that The Conservative Councillor for Hindhead Christiaan Hesse was dumped by your Waverley ten days ago, at last night’s Full Council Meeting it was announced officially by Leader Julia Potts. Saying – “he hasn’t turned up here for six months.”

Whisper who dares – and he does – frequently,  in bounded, Lib Dem Godalming Councillor Paul Follows – who simply mentioned that since joining ‘Your Waverley’ he has enjoyed the “vigorous debating” and “ideas” put forward at various council meetings, at which he only wished  more Conservative councillors would – “turn up and attend.” Adding that their non-attendance was an insult to the residents who elected them. WOW!

An utterly arrogant  Mayor Denise Le Gal lightheartedly interjected by saying with a smile – they were normally referred to as…


At which point up shot Carole Cockburn saying she hoped the day would never come when councillors would have to spell out their reasons for non-attendance. Which could be through illness or personal. 

But not to even have the good grace to write, or respond to the Council and resign Cllr Cockburn?  

What excuse do you have for your Tory colleague for that? 

Here at the WW, we have witnessed Councillor Hesse become more and more frustrated and disenchanted with your Tory administration, its decision-making, its unwillingness to listen to many insiders, let alone outsiders, your Tory-dominated inner-fold. Thereby hangs another tale of Tory dissent?

More prats deserting Waverley’s sinking Tory ship?

Perhaps he should update his Linked In:

Plus his biog says he is: Excellent written and oral communication and influence skills. High-level UK security cleared.Screenshot 2019-03-19 at 10.51.33.png


Now, who’s​ felt a touch of the whip?



Guildford’s MP Explains Her Reasons for Defying Party Whip

Guildford, Cranleigh and Eastern Waverley villages  MP, Anne Milton, has been criticised by Brexit supporters for abstaining in the recent vote to remove the “no deal” option.

When the Commons voted on an amendment to reject the UK leaving the EU without a deal under any circumstances, by a margin of four Our Annie sat on her hands and crossed her fishnets!

Resulting in the government’s original motion – stating that the UK shouldn’t leave the EU without a deal on 29 March – was changed at the last minute.

The government had wanted to keep control of the Brexit process by keeping no-deal on the table, so ordered Conservative MPs to vote against their own motion.

The tactic failed because  Government ministers, including former whip Anne Milton, defied those orders leading to claims Mrs May had lost control of her party.

“The updated motion, to reject a no-deal Brexit under any circumstances, was passed by 321 to 278, a majority of 43.”

Anne Milton who has consistently said that, in her view, a “no deal” departure from the EU would be very damaging to the UK, was one of 13 government ministers – including cabinet members Amber Rudd, Greg Clark, David Gauke and David Mundell, to defy the government whip by abstaining.

 In a message to constituents, she said, “There was a series of amendments tabled by MPs  I voted against the amendment (a) in Dame Caroline Spelman’s name to remove no deal as an option partly because of the comments she (Dame Caroline) made herself. “She attempted to withdraw her amendment believing that the main Government motion was more powerful. However, the amendment was still put to the House and was won very narrowly – there were 312 votes in favour and 308 votes against.

“The main motion then became the only opportunity to prevent no deal on 29
March. Leaving with a deal has consistently been the Government’s preferred
outcome and this is a personal view that I have long held myself.

“I have always believed that a deal with the European Union, and a measured transition when leaving, was important for our economy. I, therefore, did not feel I could vote against this motion but wanted to make sure no deal was removed as an option.

“I would like us to leave the EU on 29 March and, had the Prime Minister’s deal
been supported, this would have been possible. I believe that a delay is now
inevitable if we do not want to leave without a deal in place.”

 Guildford resident Stuart Barnes, a former Conservative party member who supports Brexit, said,  “Judging by the disgraceful betrayal by MPs and ministers it seems that our Conservative MP was not listening when the resolution was passed by the GCA [Guildford Conservative Association].

“This possibly means the end of the party or at least a split between the real Conservatives (there are still some in the party) and the faux Conservatives who were mainly brought in under the ghastly Cameron regime.

I look forward to news of mass sackings and deselections of the faux Conservative MPs as their constituency members in the main are still real Conservatives.”

Godalming resident Patrick Haveron commented: “I see Anne Milton abstained, supporting the government on ‘No Deal’. Quite a feat for a former whip!”

Leave campaigner Christian Holliday, a Conservative borough councillor for Burpham was more conciliatory. Saying,  “I’m pleased Anne didn’t support the motion as amended. Attempting to rule out ‘No Deal ever’ on any circumstances sends out completely the wrong message in negotiations with the EU, although it is worth re-emphasising that ‘No Deal’ is still the current legal default position and, in my view, is the outcome that most closely reflects the referendum result.”

Guildford Conservative Association chairman Bob Hughes added: “Anne has shown once again that she puts the people she represents first. She continues to support the Prime Minister’s deal but regards leaving with no deal as being potentially disastrous, at least in the short term. It is not what people voted for and she is right to seek to rule it out.”

The three other Tory MPS whose constituencies overlap Guildford Borough, Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) Jonathan Lord (Woking), and Jeremy Hunt (Waverley) all supported the government and voted against the motion

Explaining the rebellion the “conservativehome” website states: “..it may well be that there are extenuating circumstances. First, it wasn’t expected that the Government’s motion would be amended. Before it was passed, the whip for the Government’s motion was for a free vote.

“Next, it is being claimed that a senior MP, or Downing Street aide, or both, indicated to some of the Ministers concerned that they would be able to abstain on the motion still – despite the amendment, originally tabled by Caroline Spelman, having been passed.

“The long and short of it is that it isn’t clear as we write which of the above, bar Mundell, acted knowingly in defiance of a three-line whip. And the waters will doubtless be muddied sufficiently so that we never know.”

Follows on Crime as Godalming is dubbed – ‘A frontier town!’


Crime is now a regular feature on all Waverley’s neighbourhood community boards. There were 19 incidents in one night in Cranleigh!  Many others reported to the police in Haslemere and Farnham. Godalming resident Mark Kimber is now referring to Godalming as a ” frontier town.”  

Others tell us they can’t even be bothered to report incidents and are taking their own measures to keep their homes, families and vehicles safe.

Here’s what Mark Kimber thinks…

Screen Shot 2019-03-16 at 21.21.47.png

And here’s what Liberal Democrat Godalming Councillor Paul Follows has to say about the deteriorating situation.

Here’s a man who is taking the concerns of Godalming people seriously, very seriously. 

A man, as you will see from this e-mail sent to Godalming Conservative supporters, that the Tories want to get rid of.

Screen Shot 2019-03-11 at 09.34.14

A sea change washes over Alfold? – But nothing to do with Care Ashore.


Word on the street – or, in this case, the lanes – is that there has been something of a sea change in Alfold. That tiny little village (population circa 1059 in the 2011 Census) has, it would appear, finally thrown in the towel and decided that it might be better to – whisper it who dares – attempt to work with the Dunsfold Developer rather than oppose it every millimetre of the way!

Could these petrol heads soon be on their way to Dunsfold? Not if -some of the neighbours – have anything to do with it?

Long may it last … although if Little Britton of Protect Our Waverley (POW) gets his way and is parachuted into the Chair of the Parish Council in May, the truce may be short-lived – very short-lived!

Although, according to our informant, even the current Chair of the Parish Council had clearly had enough of the preening Little Britton Aka (POW). He recently attempted to throw a spoke in the wheel of the council’s bid to make peace with the Dunsfold Developer and offer its support for the latest application in relation to the Aerodrome.

Who the blazes does this arrogant little pipsqueak think he is? Unless we’re very much mistaken – and, if we are, we’ll apologise – both the Aerodrome and the Dunsfold Developer were in situ long before those Johnny-Come-Latelys, Little Britton and his wife, rocked up at their des res overlooking the airfield.

No sooner had Cranleigh Removals driven out the gates of Hall Place Farm than Little Britton and his wife had signed up to the Provisional Wing of Protect Our Waverley, intent on blasting the development of anything at the Aerodrome to kingdom come. But didn’t care an s*d  about the green fields of Cranleigh, Farnham, Ewhurst, Godalming’s Arons’s Hill, Milford Golf course, and now more Ewhurst countryside going under more concrete!

The usual suspects from the Provisional Wing of POW were naturally salivating at the prospect of yet more rabid NIMBYs joining their ranks and laid out the red (or do we mean green?) carpet and embarked on yet another orgy of self-congratulation.

Talking of Protect our Waverley, where are they when they’re needed? We seek them here, we seek them there, the poor beleaguered residents of Milford, Farnham, Godalming, Cranleigh and Ewhurst seek them everywhere but that rather unsavoury and steadily dwindling band of one-trick ponies seems to have evaporated in a puff of smoke on the steps of the High Court, with Little Britton now trying, mendaciously and repeatedly, to claim he’s nothing to do with them and hasn’t been for a very long time.

Just in case – he’s missed this clip and he’s conveniently forgotten his membership we will remind him here…

Screen Shot 2019-02-21 at 10.33.57.png

Isn’t it high time someone prosecuted Protect our Waverley under the Trades Description Act?!

Because as sure as hell it ain’t doing what it says on the can!

Politics with a Big P has been kicked out of Cranleigh Parish Council.






Once upon a time in La, La Land – where nothing is quite what it seems – Politics with a Big P has been kicked out of Cranleigh Parish Council!

Hurrah! Hurrah! The Parish Council has had a Eureka moment you might think … or maybe not!

We’re told, the Tory councillors in Cranleigh have issued a press release advising the Cranleigh voting fodder that all former Tory councillors will now call themselves INDEPENDENTS and are no longer to be under the cosh of their Tory masters!

If you believe that you’ll believe anything! Including that Mary Poppins was a saucy sex slave to Mr Banks’ evil banker!

Hold the bunting! Now regular readers will know that we, at the Waverley Web, hate to pee on anyone’s fireworks but over here in Farnham the Town Council has been playing these pretend war games for years – whilst all the time covertly running one of the slickest, most politically motivated outfits in the borough, as fully paid-up members of the Provisional Wing of the Surrey Tory Tossers (PSWTT).

mylittlepovey2The mutter in the Cranleigh gutter is that the Chairman of the Cranleigh Branch of Guildford Conservatives is spitting horsy-nuts over disenchanted Tory candidates behaving so churlishly, and so ungratefully so soon after the selection process to stand for Waverley borough and Cranleigh parish council seats as CONSERVATIVES. In fact, it’s rumoured he’s so cross he almost fell off his Little Pony!

So what will change? Well, wannabe Cranleigh parish councillors will now have to print and distribute their own election leaflets and pay their own election expenses. Holy Moses! Can it really be true that the party of the Duck House Debacle is really eschewing the truffle trough of election expenses?! Surely not!

Word on Cranleigh’s HGV over-burdened streets predicts the Tories believe they might just be in trouble – big trouble – in the True Blue Tory Heartland and that there may be challenges afoot from numerous Independents of the real kind – the WYSIWYG (what-you-see-is-what-you-get), does what it says on the can variety as opposed to the ones who simply doff their Tory-Tosser hats at parish meetings and pop them back on again at borough meetings.

Maybe it’s time to remind these dyed in the wood die-hards what the word INDEPENDENT actually means?


The so-called non-political Farnham Town Council recently parachuted in a well-known Tory councillor following the resignation of another female Tory councillor only months before the election. Other Tory Tosser councillors were dragged from their death beds to prevent the seat being snaffled up by a true Independent or any other party because keeping Farnham Tory controlled was deemed imperative.

The same happened in Godalming, only last year when Godalming’s then-Mayor and Waverley’s EXECUTIVE was convicted of child abuse and sent to jail. But – Shock! Horror! –  Liberal Democrat Paul Follows snatched the seat from the Tory Tosser’s grasp after a hard-fought By-Election. Now there is a full-on Tory attack – to “Wash That Man Right Out of Our Hair.”

We would have so much more admiration for the newly declared Cranleigh Independents if they had carried their Independence Day declarations all the way to Waverley Towers. But, no doubt, they were fearful of being exposed to the cold hard light of day that greets opposition councillors. They would have their comfort blankets whipped away and would miss Good Riddance’s whiplashing their buttocks in their new Fifty Shades of Grey – or do we mean blue? – world!



D-Day for drilling in Dunsfold.


As the locals gear up for yet another fight – we bring you the latest mutter in the gutter about Dunsfold village’s new drilling site. Whilst villagers get themselves into fight mode, the oil exploration company UK Oil & Gas (UKOG) has revealed more details of its proposed new drilling site in what it describes as Dunsfold’s…

Screen Shot 2019-03-08 at 21.13.03.png

The site chosen is next to woodland north of Dunsfold Aerodrome and the test track of Top Gear.

Screen Shot 2019-03-08 at 21.13.38.png

UKOG described the well site location as “a discreet field” in “tranquil landscape”. It is off High Loxley Road, a “narrow, winding rural lane, lined with hedgerows and mature trees”.

The company said in the leaflet it had agreed to a land lease and would shortly submit a full planning application to Surrey County Council. If successful, it hoped to begin work late this year or early in 2020.

Which should coincide quite nicely with the start of development of 1,800 homes now consented and planned at the nearby aerodrome?

UKOG said the proposed well site and site access would be screened by woodland,   a small linear area of ancient woodland lies to the north of the site. It was the proximity of proposed oil drilling to ancient woodland which prompted the Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, to decide not to renew a lease on Forestry Commission land last year for an exploration site near Leith Hill, also in Surrey.

There are 13 listed buildings within 1km of the site. Land immediately to the north of the site is designated as an Area of High Archaeological Potential. There is also evidence of a buried Roman settlement 500m south of the site, UKOG says.

Dunsfold Google Maps large


UKOG has said it did not need to frack the well because the rock was naturally fractured. It said it may use an acid wash to clean the fractures after drilling. This would use acetic acid, the acid contained in vinegar.

Single well and/or sidetrack

 UKOG said it was seeking initial permission just to drill and flow test one well, “on a limited size well pad”.

But details of working hours and lorry movements referred to drilling an additional side-track, or horizontal well. The purpose of the drilling was to “to find much-needed oil and gas for the UK’s energy security,” and if the operation were successful, the local community could benefit by up to £1m a year in benefits paid by the company in business rates and royalties.

 UKOG has given no more details on the depth of the proposed well but has confirmed that three wells were drilled locally in the 1980s and it aimed to assess their commercial viability. Those wells were drilled on the other side of the aerodrome off Loxwood Rd, Alfold.

A drilling rig said to be up to 37m, would be on site for no more than 60 days. The rest of the equipment was described as low rise and low visual.

The village of Dunsfold has no street lighting. But UKOG said the well site would be lit. It said:

“We will continual monitor the lighting arrangements to ensure we avoid any unacceptable light pollution”

New road junction

The company would need to build a new junction in High Loxley Road and what it described as minor highway improvements at the junction of Dunsfold Road and High Loxley Road.

Two trees would need to be removed where the access track met the public highway to make space for the junction. The scheme would include a 1km compacted stone access track from the road to the well site.

The site itself would be built from compacted stone, surrounded by containment ditches and security fencing with entrance gates, the company said.

Air quality

The company concedes that it would use diesel-fuelled plant and machinery and that gas from the well may be flared. 

Objectors claim: “These operations will result in the release of pollutants to atmosphere and greenhouse gas emissions with a consequential air quality impact.”

The planning application would include an air quality assessment with modelling to show the impact on people and wildlife nearby.

Subsidiary company

The operation would be carried out through a UKOG subsidiary, UKOG (234) Ltd. This is named after PEDL234, the exploration licence area in which the site is based. The PEDL also includes UKOG’s Broadford Bridge well site. Accounts for the year ending December 2017 reported a loss of £2.76m, compared with a loss of £76,000 for the year before.

 Proposed operations, timings and lorry movements

 UKOG proposes the following work at Dunsfold if granted planning permission:

Phase 1

Access and well site construction: 14 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 10 heavy goods vehicles (HGV)/day

Phase 2

Drilling mobilisation: 3 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 10 heavy goods vehicles (HGV)/day

Drilling: 12 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 10 heavy goods vehicles (HGV)/day

Drilling demobilisation: 3 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 10  HGV’s.

Well testing: 26 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 5 HGV’s. 

Sidetrack drilling: 12 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 10 HGV’s. 

Maintenance workover: 4 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 10 HGV’s.

Phase 3

Plugging and abandonment: 3 weeks, 24 hours, every day, up to 10 HGV’s.

Removal of surface equipment: 2 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 5 HGV’s. 

Phase 4

Site restoration: 5 weeks, 7am-7pm Monday-Friday; 9am-1pm Saturday, up to 10 HGV’s. 

Or Site retention: 26 weeks, no working hours are given, no lorry movements given, to allow for further application for additional work or production.

Lorry movements, though not stated, are presumed to be two-way.

Public reaction

Online video footage showed that some people seeking to attend the information meeting were not allowed in. Some people complained that the writing in the information leaflet was too small to read easily.

There was also disappointment that the leaflet was no available online or in digital format for people who had been unable to attend the meeting. The leaflet is now available here

UKOG has distributed a questionnaire and DrillOrDrop will ask the company for the analysis of the results.


Surrey County Council ruled on 28 February 2019 that the UKOG proposals for Dunsfold do not need an environmental impact assessment.

Details of the application for a screening request (SO/2019/0002) are on the Waverley Borough Council planning website (search by the request reference)