The new brooms getting to grips with Godalming.


They say a day is a long time in politics – in Godalming things are moving by the hour.

Perhaps this really progressive new council will be a model for others?  Is this the man to follow?

Since the new brooms led by Paul Follow swept into the town’s council chamber in May it has:


  •  Declared a climate emergency. 


  • -Allocated initial money to schemes to support that work this year;


  • – Added a new grant fund for carbon-reducing projects to replace that from 2020;


  • – Used some of this year’s initial money to give the green-light for three public water points at key areas of the town in Godalming, Farncombe and at the Phillips Memorial Park;


  • – A couple of other projects too (one involving some land at Ockford Ridge becoming a wildflower meadow for the community and another regarding the transition to LED bulbs);

Screen Shot 2018-04-02 at 22.28.11

  •  Upon being told that councillors robes would cost in excess of £10,000 to replace. The Town Council has elected not to!

Said Council chair Paul Follows:

“My own personal view here is that I want to be judged, and want the council to be judged on what we do and not what we wear and want to reduce any barriers between councillors and residents.

Tradition is important and this is part of our history but it should not override all other considerations.”

We also agreed on a Town council level structure of regular surgeries where at least one councillor from each ward will be available at each session to meet residents. More details on that soon.

So in my view a very good result – and I am extremely proud to be leading a reforming, modernising and cross-party town council. Many thanks to all the hard work of the town staff on all of the above too – without them, none of these measures would get off the drawing board.

Thank you also to all the residents who attended the recent meeting.🙂 Happy to discuss anything on the above either here or at Paul.follows@godalming-tc.gov.uk




Is another rainbow coalition on its way? This time to Woking?


The first 100 days of Waverley’s coalition has now been completed – and some changes have already been implemented – (The Listening Exercise) and there are many more to come.

So far the opposition has had a few major gripes, such as accusing the new administration of not appointing council members quickly enough to outside bodies – of which there are many. To which Leader John Ward said the Executive wanted to get the right people, with the right skills, into the new roles.

It also accused them of raising the public’s expectation by suggesting residents could have a bigger say in decision-making particularly on planning matters. 

Well done’Your Waverley’s’ first listening exercise was a rollicking success – and there are calls for more.

If that is all the opposition group has to complain about it augers well for the early days of the council, with more new councillors of various colours than ever before.

So Waverley’s new brooms seem to be having less of a problem than those in our neighbouring borough’s of Woking and Guildford.

You can read it here:


The media frenzy over Cranleigh’s proposed new Care Home continues unabated?


Will villagers throw a spanner into a charity’s’ works on August 3rd? Or will there be another no show?Screen Shot 2019-07-27 at 09.56.55.png

The WW has been accused by some of the Bamford Board Brigade (BBB’s) of telling lies and inciting hatred.

Screen Shot 2019-07-27 at 09.16.58.png



Now, it isn’t often our team of bloggers have a hissy fit – but on this occasion – as we have said to the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust –




What’s it all about BB have we pooped on your stoop? You’re having a laugh aren’t you Pot? Kettle? Black?

All those poorer souls from Cranleigh and the nearby villages who dug deep into their pockets to raise over £1m want answers from the charity that trousered it.  Honest answers. And social media keyboards have sizzled with incriminations. on your former self/developer/ propaganda board – the control of which you have now relinquished. 

 All villagers want to know is why they are getting an 80 private care home beds circa (1,200/300 per week and 20 community beds for Surrey County Council’s clients (circa £800 p.w. for dementia clients) a hostel for Surrey health workers and not the HOSPITAL, DAY HOSPITAL with a minor injuries unit and other services, that they were promised?

The WW accepts we are anonymous and our reasons are simple:

We are not hiding behind it, but sometimes you have to be invisible and be in all the right places to get the truth in this ever more devious world.

  • We receive information from officers/councillors and residents eager to shine a light on all things, Waverley.   They trust us to tell you – what you need to know. Nobody funds us? We have nothing to gain?
  • The WW recognises we are Western-centric but have received many hundreds of private e-mails and public comments from residents of the eastern villages who believe they have been well and truly stuffed by a Charity.
  • The WW was prompted to publicise the hospital/care home saga by “local people, In fact, until we heard about residents’ angst, we knew nothing of this 20-year saga.
  • WW does not ask, promote, or suggest that anyone reads this blog. However, it is read here and all over the world.
  • For the first time since its foundation – now every political party; including Conservatives regularly read and comment on our posts.

We have received a Facebook trail of comments from the Cranleigh Community Board – run by the BB – who claims we are run by developers. Well BB – it takes one to know one?

And.. we will have a sporting sixpence bet with you BB when you say we are supported by developers. Name them? And within 24 hours of rising to our challenge, you will be on the receiving end of a solicitors’ letter!

Our offices are not provided/rented from a local developer; we are not Trustees working on behalf of a local developer – and we did not set up a local board to promote any developer’s agenda? Simples.

  1. So we ask – what lies has the WW told Mr Bamford?
  2. If we have lied or misinformed anyone – tell us do? Or perhaps your Mummy will tell us for you? And then we pledge to correct our so-called mistakes.

So let’s do a FACT CHECK and attempt to help BB untwist his super-hero spandex.

Whatever good intentions The Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust may once have had – the road to ruin is paved with good intentions?


Why did thousands of men, women and children support one of the biggest fund-raising initiatives the eastern villages had ever seen?


Because they were told it was for a replacement Cranleigh hospital with beds for residents within a 5-mile radius, on a new site owned by villagers via their partners (Cranleigh Parish Council.) This hospital, they were told, would include a day hospital for outpatients,  minor injuries; X-Ray unit and diagnostics and MRI.  

Screen Shot 2019-07-29 at 09.25.10.png FACT

Cranleigh once boasted a Surrey County Council Dementia Residential Nursing Home – called Longfields – 65+ beds. We had one here in Farnham called Cobgates. Both abandoned, closed and left to rot. One is now derelict.  One Cranleigh organisation told us that villagers raised funds to build a dementia garden there! –

– more villagers’ money down the pan?

So where are 20 of those 120 or so former county council elderly care beds going? Yes, you guessed – just 20 of them into the new private Care Home operated by HC-One, currently FOR SALE and with debts of £800m! All was revealed recently in the Daily Mail.


For whom are the 20 community beds intended? The residents of Surrey. As one villager commented…


“You have as much chance of winning the lottery as you have of jumping into a CVHT bed?”

So Who Dares Wins? SCC? Who gets to flog off a valuable site which should be used to meet the real needs of adult social care.  Not trouser the money to push into a gold-plated pension pot instead of building – a proper residential care facility to serve the rapidly increasing population of Cranleigh and villages? An increase of over 6,000 when you include Dunsfold Park?

However, who wouldn’t grab beds heavily subsidised by the public, a parish council and the future care home’s paying residents’ purses?

Questions you could answer Mr Bamford, as we understand, as you have a direct conduit through the Chamber of Commerce and as a Trustee of the Knowle Park Initiative /A2 Dominion into the developer?


How long is ‘the bed contract’ with SCC? A year? Five years?


What was the District Valuer’s valuation on the land sold to CVHT  by the parish council for £1? 


What exactly is the ‘community benefit?’ Whose ‘community?’


How much Community Infrastructure Levy will it contribute towards infrastructure for such a large development?  

Will, the developer hand over 106 monies or Community Infrastructure Levy to mitigate for the upheaval, increased traffic, noise and inconvenience to Waverley tenants of a three-storey building owned by ‘Your Waverley” and a 26-bed hostel unit – that is actually a housing development in all but name in Whisper Drive?

 We suspect – ZILCH?


Would anyone support a scheme that has no value or benefit to the people who helped fund it?

Answer these questions Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust aka Martin Bamford – to the satisfaction of your donors and then you may get residents’ backing?

Rock up to a public meeting open to everyone, at Cranleigh Village hall on Saturday, August 3rd between 10-12 and have your say. Because the Deputy Leader of Waverley Borough Council will be there to hear you.

Has Cranleigh Parish Council thrown a spanner in the works of a charity’s efforts to build a private nursing home on land once owned by villagers?

As far as we can ascertain – the parish council (a partner of CVHT) has received no response to its solicitor’s letters concerning the covenant it imposed on the land.








Managing the change – for a better Waverley.


As there is so much controversy over the membership of ‘Your Waverley’s’ Executive.

Screen Shot 2019-05-08 at 14.26.36.png

 Once new councillors have signed their Declarations of Office, they must nominate a new Leader, a New Deputy and Mayor. All of whom are now in post and cracking on with the jobs in hand – but apparently not fast enough for the ousted Tories.

A huge and important task faced one of the largest numbers of new councillors ‘YW’  has ever seen. To chose the Executive – where major issues are first debated and then scrutinised by the Overview & Scrutiny Committees and the roles of Portfolio Holders.

A  new council made up of every political party (except Tories) and an Independent recognised very early on they needed to learn from the mistakes made by the previous regime. Engage more with the public, listen more and communicate more effectively.  By the way, the Tories were offered a place on the Executive but refused! Got it? REFUSED!

Although all the parties have formed a Coalition, the Conservative group of 23 councillors still remain the largest party and will be judged by their actions on how they treat the new incumbents, who have been duly elected.

The skills and abilities of individuals, from whichever party need to be recognised as chairmen, portfolio holders etc. A  team of all the talents from across the political spectrum.

It also needs to be recognised that the number one task is to represent the interests of Waverley residents in the towns and villages. We (WW) believe the views of the towns and parishes should carry greater weight, on planning matters in particular. So should the views of the councillors who represent the areas in which development is planned.

Is it fair for example that if all councillors in one area vote against an application they can be outvoted by councillors in other areas with different agendas and priorities?

Thankfully the Listening Exercise has already taken root – See here: Well done’Your Waverley’s’ first listening exercise was a rollicking success – and there are calls for more.

There is also a pressing need to get rid of poor quality staff especially those who think quantity is far more important than quality. Shun the sometimes vomit-inducing tendency of thanking officers at every opportunity just for doing their job, often, not even particularly well. Throw out developers/turned planning officers who are there to help their colleagues?

There are many areas that need attention, the planning portal for one, which is almost impossible for professionals to navigate let alone the layperson.  Our bete noir, the webcasting system, that works for some of the people all of the time, and some people none of the time, but never all of the people all the time. Send it back to Rumbelows?

Treat one another with respect. Turn up, and stay awake, and at least look as though you have read your papers. It was so obvious at the shambolic second meeting of Full Council that many hadn’t! There were numerous mistakes in the paperwork!

Stop pretending that homes costing upwards of £400,000 are “affordable homes” find another name for them, and build council houses that are affordable based on average shop/farm/worker salaries.

The London borough of Westminster has decided that no more officers can automatically be converted into residential properties. The town of Haslmlemere has had its shops and offices given the same protection, so other towns should follow – SOON!

Fuming voters ditched the Tories because they failed to bring out a credible Local Plan early enough. Full marks to Julia Potts & Co, they did manage something. However, even that is awaiting a decision on a challenge in the High Court… again.

The largest brownfield site in the borough should have been released for housing years ago. Those delays have cost the eastern villages dearly – and the Tories have been punished for it. Now – everyone should LISTEN to the public’s concerns as the purse-strings tighten.


A giant leap for Haslemere Community Hospital.


The Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford has given a huge injection of funds – an amazing £9m investment for adult community care at Haslemere’s Community Hospital.

Who will it be led by? 

According to Rose Parry – Chairman of Haslemere League of Friends and once responsible for Cranleigh and Haslemere Hospitals. It will include:

“A dedicated geriatrician, A GP specialist and nurse practitioner.

Despite the challenge of recruiting GP’s, the Haslemere practice has developed a role for supporting the direct admissions, rehabilitation and reablement beds in the hospital.”

Screen Shot 2019-07-26 at 09.24.22.png

Screen Shot 2019-07-20 at 09.32.09.png


17.07.19 – Booster Jab copy

Jeremy Hunt – backs the benches?



A little bird told us here at the Waverley Web – before it was stuffed, that our MP Jeremy Hunt turned down an important role in Boris Johnson’s new cabinet.

With a rictus grin on his face – you know the one – he told all his Twitter followers…

Screen Shot 2019-07-24 at 21.46.54.png

Yes,  you guessed. Our little Westminster bird told us he believed he may have turned down the new post of Minister for Entrepreneurs?!

Screen Shot 2019-07-24 at 21.46.54

We appreciate he has been a Minister for most of his elected career, so it is heartwarming to see this tweet about his family in Hammersmith. No mention of his poor neglected Surrey electorate though. Some commentators have thought, given the polling in Guildford and South West Surrey of a Yellow Wave, he may not stand for re-election again in the forthcoming inevitable Autumn election.

Screenshot 2019-07-25 at 08.21.51

One wag suggested he really wanted to be Housing Minister to improve his portfolio!



Well done’Your Waverley’s’ first listening exercise was a rollicking​ success – and there are calls for more.


Wasn’t it former Tory Planning Portfolio holder Brian Adams who claimed recently that listening to the public would only raise unrealistic expectations?


A panel made up of the council’s new guard – almost completely switched off their microphones and did the unimaginable… they just LISTENED.

And the public thanked them for doing just that – listening – and urged them to object to the mineral extraction authority saying Surrey County Council holds the key that could unlock a catastrophe.

The Listening Panel heard from neighbours fearful of what UGOC’s oil and gas exploration in Dunsfold could do to their lives, their businesses, and their livelihoods. The heard accounts from residents whose lives and their health had already been impacted upon by drilling in Horley – and in West Sussex. They heard evidence from financial experts who painted a grim picture of the parlous financial state of exploration companies who ignore planning rules, planning conditions, and are, in the main – a law unto themselves in their pursuit of…

Screen Shot 2019-07-24 at 09.18.10.png

A highly informed and eloquent group of residents and organisations from Waverley and beyond – provided the  First Listening Exercise – with first-hand accounts of the damage already caused by oil and gas exploration in other parts of Surrey.  They also predicted the consequences of what one described as the …

Screen Shot 2019-07-24 at 09.17.28.pngNew application on Dunsfold drilling site creates “an impossible challenge” for decision-makers, say villagers

Alfold and Dunsfold ~Parish Council representatives spoke of the massive impact exploration could have on those two villages. Villages soon to see a new garden village for 1,800 homes at Dunsfold Airfield in their midst.

Ashley Hurman, A neighbouring farmer spoke of the devastation that could be caused to animals and an organic craft brewery that used water from natural wells in its production for users including the armed forces. It was just 226m of the proposed well. Wedding venue owner Tom Gordon spoke of the damaged that could be caused to his business, where reservations were sometimes made three-years in advance and events were held in the open at High Billinghurst Farm.

Others spoke of the confusion around the two applications made by UCOG and another in Alfold all hiding behind vague descriptions of the methods it would use – which is in effect – Fracking!

Environmental groups including Friends of the Earth – Patrick Haveron; Extinction Rebellion Chris Neale; SW Surrey Labour Party Natasha Fletcher; Campaign for The Preservation of Rural England (CPRE) Chris Lindesay all spoke of the catastrophic consequences to the environment from the unrelenting search for minerals.

Dunsfold resident Melanie Shown highlighted the traffic dangers, for walkers, horse riders and cyclists and also spoke up for the travelling community who lived nearby – and who had no voice.

Duns fold publican Terence O’Rourke questioned the financial security of companies saying that, should permission be allowed, should be forced to put up a bond of at least £9m to restore the land.

That money – all £9m should be paid before a spade hits the ground – if not, you can be sure – we are on our own. The costs could land in the laps of the local community.”

Jennifer Condit questioned the viability of the companies – whose risk register (all of seven pages) provided for investors revealed some startling facts. Risks they described as “minimal” including – oil spills; blowouts etcetera – and no insurance…

“I have never seen a list of risks like this  – not in my 30 years in the finance industry.”

Alison Canton from Godalming said the area under consideration was “unique” and it would be damaged for her children, and her children’s children. “This is just about making money.” What about the planet – and climate change?

Matt Phelps asked? Does Waverley Council want to be remembered as the council who opened up the Weald for drilling?

 It was pointed out by the chairman Green Party’s  Cllr Steve Williams that Waverley could only comment on the application – it was not the determining authority. 

A clip of his summing up will be the subject of another post.

But it was Lisa Scott from Horley who hammered in the final nail as she gave a graphic account of being out running and almost fainting with breathlessness after being affected by the Hydrochloric Acid during drilling activities at Horsehill – in the “Gatwick Cluster.

“It took me almost three months to recover. Family businesses had been ruined, homes cannot be sold; livestock damaged and injured; fields flooded and the community broken!”

She said planning conditions had consistently been flouted, pedestrian – ignored – cyclists – ignored – parking restrictions – ignored with lorries rocking up in Tesco’s car park! What had the county council done – nothing!

After wards Waverley’s  deputy leader – Paul Follows commented:

A really good first Executive Listening Panel session this evening (considering the Waverley borough council response to plans to drill for fossil fuels at Dunsfold) – Cllr Steve Williams did an excellent job of chairing and thank you for to our officers for arranging and bringing to life the wishes of the new administration to really engage. I am hugely proud to be deputy leader of a council committed to proper engagement and to work with a cross-party executive committed to that direction.

I must say it was very informed, eloquent and respectful participation from everyone and I am more certain than ever that engagement sessions like this are the right thing to do.

We have had plenty of comments from some sources that we shouldn’t ‘raise residents expectations’ but I think this was informative on both sides and I think everyone present understood a bit more about the facts and the process.

This sort of engagement activity will continue.




New application on Dunsfold drilling site creates “an impossible challenge” for decision-makers, say villagers


 To-day Waverley’s Executive will hold its FIRST ” LISTENING EXERCISE” to consider proposed fossil fuels exploration in Dunsfold. Waverley only has an advisory role here as by law the decision on fuel exploration is taken at County level. But advice needs to be well-documented and well-supported to have the maximum chance of success.

Tuesday from 6 -9pm  at the Waverley Council Offices.

However, Surrey Labour Party has already come out against the proposal. It believes it is contradictory for Surrey County Council, in the same breath as declaring a climate emergency driven by excessive use of fossil fuels, to then facilitate drilling for fossil fuels in Surrey.

A submission is included here SW Surrey Labour Statement Dunsfold Hydrocarbon Explorationon for which Binscombe councillor Gerry Boyle did a great deal of the work to assist in its preparation.

Let the listening begin on fossil fuel exploration in Dunsfold & Alfold?

190719 Dunsfold access route

Residents of Dunsfold have described plans for a proposed oil and gas site as “confused and muddled” and want the proposals withd

The community group, Protect Dunsfold, has called  for all the proposals to be withdrawn after a second planning application for the site by UK Oil & Gas plc was published.

The first application for two oil and gas wells, published in June 2019, included an access track off High Loxley Road.

The second application is for an alternative access off Dunsfold Road.

This new application adds 32 documents to the 88 in the first application. Some of the documents are new;  others are revised versions.

A spokesperson for Protect Dunsfold said:

“The original application, and this new one, represent an impossible challenge for the decision-making authority and statutory consultees, many of whom are unpaid volunteers.

“They are now charged with the responsibility of guessing which of the overlapping reports to consider and all of the possible outcomes and implications from these two muddled applications. With all parties making comments on some individually-created synthesis there is no certainty that comments and decisions are being made about the same thing.”

The original application was criticised for mistakes and inconsistencies. There were two different maps of the access track and one paragraph in the executive summary appeared to refer to a different site. Within a week, UKOG issued a clarification statement about one policy argument it used to support the application.

The second application includes speed survey data that was available at the time of the first application but was not referred to in the original transport statement. The new application appears to have dropped proposals for a temporary 30mph limit on Dunsfold Road that was in the first application.

The spokesperson for Protect Dunsfold said:

“It has long been our view since the day after the initial application was published, and Dunsfold Parish Council now agrees, that there are so many careless errors in the original application, and now this one, that Surrey County Council should advise UKOG that both applications will be rejected.

“The county council should advise that both applications are withdrawn and a new updated, accurate and unified application submitted which clearly explains what UKOG(234)Ltd [the licence operator] actually wants to do so it can be considered on its merits.

“This situation is now so confused that the only possible way forward is a full environmental Impact analysis which reconciles all of the various reports and data produced thus far by UKOG, together with any more data they have not yet disclosed.

“There would then be an authoritative view on the environmental impact of a unified proposal which all consultees can consider in a new, coherent, application.”

UKOG told DrillOrDrop

“We had lots of feedback from our public event [about the proposals] at Dunsfold Village Hall and a key one concerned our original access route.

“We were asked to pursue an alternative access off Dunsfold Road and this is the subject of the fresh application.”

But this statement did not satisfy Protect Dunsfold. It said:

“In truth it is quite clear from the careless inconsistencies in the initial application that this access was UKOG’s original plan, which they changed part way through their development of their application presumably because they found impediments to this access that were fatal to their case.

“By now attempting to characterise this as ‘in response to local consultation’ they are seeking to imply there is a degree of local support for their overall plan and objections are only to the access proposal, claiming a “responsiveness to local opinion” which might trump the original impediments.”

The group called on Surrey County Council to reject the first application for reasons including unsafe access. The second application should then be rejected, it said, because it was redundant – attempting to access a website that did not exist.

Revised access

The second application is for three years and seeks consent for construction, operation and restoration of a highway junction with boundary fencing, entrance gates and a 400m access track.

The junction would be secured by 2.5m high close-boarded timber panel gates, set back from Dunsfold Road, the application said.

2.5m security fencing would enclose a section of track wide enough for two heavy commercial vehicles to pass. The track would then reduce to 4.1m wide and be enclosed by stock-proof fencing.

An overhead electricity cable would be buried where it crossed the proposed route.

According to the application, the work on the junction and access track would take four weeks, using 12 construction staff and 3-6 security officers. Proposed working and delivery hours were 7am-7pm Monday-Friday and 9am-1pm on Saturday.

The application predicted 10 two-way lorry movements a day during construction. The scheme would not “have a detrimental impact” on traffic or the highway network, it said.

Required visibility splays at the junction of the track and Dunsfold Road could be achieved if trees at the access were removed, the application added. All proposed vehicle movements could be achieved within the existing roads and proposed changes.

UKOG said of the scheme:

“It represents precisely the kind of investment required if the UK is to make the ‘best use’ of its mineral resources, reduce the vulnerability of being a net-importer of energy and deliver sustainable growth. In a society where the well-being of all is the ultimate objective, such private sector support for the wider public good is acknowledged and encouraged by national energy and planning policy.”

UKOG said these benefits were enough to outweigh what it described as “minor harm” from construction and disturbance.

According to the application, nine trees and an 11m section of hedgerow would have to be removed to make way for the proposed access.

A report submitted with the application said the land that would be crossed by the access was the source of several Mesolithic flint tools. Because of this, it has been designated an area of high archaeological potential and country site of archaeological importance.

The area crossed by the access is also likely to be used by skylark and lapwing during the breeding season, the application said. Breeding birds may be present in the trees and hedgerows.

The hedges and treeline near the access provide good-quality foraging and commuting habitat for bats. A survey for UKOG found common lizard and grass snake in the area south of Dunsfold Road and it had been designated of local nature conservation value to reptiles. The area of the access route could also be colonised by badgers, the application said.

Despite these finds, consultants for UKOG concluded that the access road would have no adverse or significant effects on reptiles, bats or birds and the effects on archaeology could be made acceptable.

The decision date for both Dunsfold applications is currently set for 11 September 2019. UKOG’s proposal for extra wells and long-term oil production at its other site in Surrey, at Horse Hill, is also currently due to be decided on this date.

  • The Dunsfold scheme is to be discussed at a listening panel, organised for the first time by Waverley Borough Council, a statutory consultee on the applications. Residents and organisations are invited to give their views at a public session on tonight Tuesday 23 July 2019 from 6pm-9pm. The sessions will be webcast. DrillOrDrop will report on the event.

Will there be another runway, “by stealth”, at Gatwick?


Screen Shot 2019-07-21 at 10.57.55.png

Screen Shot 2019-07-21 at 10.58.09.pngSEVENTY planes could leave Gatwick Airport every hour if plans to use a backup runway for routine flights go ahead.

Planes that would affect parts of Waverley.

Officials recently announced that the airport plans to use its backup runway for regular departures and has unveiled a “master plan”.

Though the airport will not pursue the building of a third runway, it has said the Government will safeguard land previously earmarked for it.

Gatwick chief executive Stewart Wingate said the plans would

“incrementally grow” the airport to meet the demand for passengers.

He said:

“This would be the biggest private investment for the region in the coming years, which would result in significant local economic benefits including new jobs for the area.”

Head of corporate affairs Mark Lever tempered down fears of noise pollution saying,

 “It’s important to remember aircraft will be quieter and cleaner by the time this runway is up and running.

“The flight paths won’t be any different for departures besides flying from a different runway.”

Airport officials hope to have a planning application finished by the first half of next year.

But Mr Leber predicted the backup runway would not operate until 2026 at the earliest if plans are approved.

A spokeswoman for Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions branded the announcement…

“a second runway by stealth”.

She said:

“This announcementScreen Shot 2019-07-21 at 10.57.55.png by Gatwick management flies in the face of the Government’s pledge for ‘net zero’ CO2 emissions by 2050.

“This clearly illustrates Gatwick’s greed comes before everything and must now be seen as the neighbour from hell for all the communities of Surrey & Sussex that already find aircraft noise unbearable.

“It is totally disingenuous to the residents of Crawley to continue to safeguard land for a third runway when housing demand is high.”

Let the listening begin on fossil fuel exploration in Dunsfold & Alfold?


%d bloggers like this: