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The community group, Protect Dunsfold, has called  for all the proposals to be withdrawn after a second planning application for the site by UK Oil & Gas plc was published.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


You did what – Jeremy?


YOU – delivered the Olympics? And no doubt can run the country single-handed?



Absolutely – it is about what you deliver! Ask the residents of Farnham what you have delivered there? As for your promises – how about this one?

Now – what do you say about this disgrace Jeremy?

Farnham’s Redgrave Rests in Pieces.

We wonder if Waverley Planners will take enforcement action against this little outfit?


Not – if they pay enough?

Marvel filming despite planning delay

FILMING for a new blockbuster movie has got underway at Hankley Common despite a related planning application still waiting to be determined.

The upcoming Marvel film Black Widow, starring Scarlett Johansson, started filming this week, with the second week of filming due to take place next month.

However, despite planning applications being made to Waverley Borough Council, no formal decision has been made surrounding the use of the current nature reserve and Ministry of Defence site as a film set.

Working under the title ‘Blue Bayou’, filming took place on July 16-17, with another five days of filming due to take place between August 20 and August 27, with sets also under construction.

The application includes the “change of use of land for a temporary period to allow outdoor filming”, “use of building and hardstanding construction of sets” as well as 200 parking spaces and use of controlled fire effects.

Details of the sets for construction also include a “helicopter crash”, “plane crash site” and the “Russian farmstead”. Hankley Common has been the site of many famous films and television shows, particularly James Bond movies such as The World Is Not Enough, Die Another Day and Skyfall.

A Waverley Borough Council spokesman said

“The planning application is currently under consideration and there will be no decision on this until at least August 2.

“The agent for the application has been contacted to remind them that any filming which takes place outside of planning permission may represent a breach of planning control and may be subject to enforcement action.” Anyone wishing to report a breach should visit

Residents can also post their own comments through Waverley Borough Council’s planning site at using reference WA/2019/1035.

This article comes from the fantastic Farnham Herald.

The first meeting of ‘Your new Waverley​.’ Let the battles begin?


Five minutes into the first Full Meeting of ‘Your Waverley’  and the gloves were on and the spats began.

Oh dear – Alfold’s former policeman turned politician isn’t happy now he doesn’t have his posterior pinned to a seat on Waverley’s Executive.   He fears as a back-bencher he won’t get enough of a say – or is it perhaps money, out of Dunsfold proposed new 1,800/2,600  garden village? Coming to an airfield near him soon?



So up popped the weasel from Bramley to provide the first slap of the evening, to ask on the Alfold Councillors behalf – how the NEW EXECUTIVE planned to oversee the Dunsfold development?   O.M.G. and didn’t those two words “New Executive” stick in the gullet of Tory Richard Seaborne. The very same councillor who, along with Cllr DeAnus opposed ANY development on the largest Brownfield site in the borough. Perish the thought that they should now be so concerned about how it is to be managed.  Without the benefit of their spanners in the works, perhaps? By the way, why wasn’t  Alfold’s Bobby delivering the question he posed? Or was he at Dunsfold Park with his begging bowl?

Screen Shot 2019-07-17 at 21.36.44.png

Want to know why?

Numerous members of the public have been debating this little matter on our scurrilous Blog for some time. Now there’s your answer Bunty and Aunty Doris.

View the clip above: – Listen very carefully – as both the Leader John Ward and his Deputy Paul Follows deliver the slap, bang, wallop on behalf of ‘Your New Waverley.’


As he says on the clip – this is the third time you (The Tory Group) have asked this question? Why? Or is this for the benefit of the public? 

So we are doing our civic duty by bringing it to your breakfast table this morning.


Scoring goals is becoming a bit of a habit for Alfold.


Screen Shot 2019-07-17 at 09.41.44.pngEarlier this year ‘Your Waverley’ gave a cash boost to Alfold Football Club. It handed over £20,000 towards improvements to its grounds to include: new floodlights, a spectator stand and other ground improvements.

For a football club whose members come from Crawley – yes, Crawley, not Cranleigh, or Alfold or Dunsfold but Crawley in West Sussex. Apparently, its players don’t even train in Alfold – they train in, yes you get it – Crawley!

Did the money come from developer’s contributions under their 106 Agreement contributions for infrastructure? Because although 150 new homes have been consented only 20 plus + have so far been built in Loxwood Road. And not forgetting Surrey County Council’s new school units which didn’t need planning consent let alone contribute infrastructure contributions. No sign yet, we are told by villagers of the rest of the proposed developments at Brockhurst and the former Wyevale Garden Centre. or, perhaps the planners have other sites in mind for further development?

Now the village has hit the jackpot twice, in a matter of months. This time ‘Your Waverley’ has awarded Alfold Sports & Social Club a thumping £73,300 towards improving the clubhouse and the village hall.

Just goes to show how effective it is when councillors dub a village… 

…”Poor old Alfold?”

And you have former bobby Cllr Kevin Deanus to put his best foot forward for your  team?

The money comes from “YW’s’ capital receipts and improving Alfold is one of its corporate priorities, as it will actively engage the club’s social sporting customers and ensure sporting and social opportunities exist for all.

Apparently, the money comes from “easement funds” which are allocated towards communities and sporting facilities, the WW presumes, throughout the borough?

Now here at the WW, we wouldn’t want to be accused of peeing on anyone’s fireworks, or in this case, goalposts, particularly as there are among our team, football fanatics. But we do wonder what this part of the report means:


1. Alfold has seen some significant housing developments in the local area and as a result, some of the community facilities in existence need to be enhanced to meet this additional need. Following Executive approval, Waverley Borough Council received a financial sum from a housing development in Alfold for its interest in some adjacent land required for access. The majority of this sum will contribute to Waverley’s overall capital programmes but this report proposes that a relatively small proportion is allocated to improve local facilities in Alfold. This project covers two organisations which cater to the needs of the Young and Elderly both in sport, leisure and community well being. Alfold Parish Council is supportive and the proposed scheme has been developed following several meetings with members of the Sports and Social club. The Club will be managing the project governance.

“Significant housing in the local area” Around 150, if they are all built – and presently under construction 55? Or are they including Alfold’s new neighbour? The Dunsfold new garden village.


  1. Alfold Village Hall was built in 1963. It was the culmination of considerable local fundraising and the physical hard work of the community. Over the past 53 years, the village Hall has continued to flourish. In 2005 the hall was extended, the kitchen enlarged and a small meeting room built and the toilets were refurbished. The hall is structurally sound, but as the years go by, the fixtures and fittings are becoming tired and worn. Fundraising takes place, but the amount raised is generally small, and the upgrades and replacements are beyond their reach. The carpet requires replacing, and new tables and chairs are urgently needed. The stage curtains are at the end of their useful life, and the car park is inadequate to cope with the demand to park. The purchase of parking strips will allow for this parking and help protect the grass. The ovens in the kitchen need replacing as they are inefficient, and hand driers in the building would be both more efficient in financial terms, but also more hygienic.
  2. These necessary improvements will allow the hall to be fit for purpose for the future and will ensure that the facilities are used extensively for future generations as they are now.
  3. Alfold Sports and Social Club has been serving the community for over 40 years. The facilities support sporting activity to football, cricket, tennis, stoolball and darts, as well as providing an environment for social events.
  4. The clubhouse was last updated many years ago. The carpets are worn and ripped in many places being held in place with tape, and the curtains which were made by a local resident, are still in use some 30 years later.
  5. The clubhouse requires the ceiling to be removed, and old wiring to be removed or replaced. The club needs insulating to be more efficient. The general electrics need to be brought up to current standards, and the plumbing system needs to be upgraded to be able to cope with the current demands. The curtains, chairs and tables need replacing, and in addition, some alterations are required to make better use of the building. The existing beam needs to be removed so a larger opening can be created. With the installation of folding doors, it will enable the club to be split into two, maximising its potential use. Walls need plastering, skirting and floor screed will make the facilities outstanding, and upgrades to the existing kitchen facilities.
  6. Finance Implications:

Estimated Costs


Village Hall
Alfold Sports & Social Club

£18,200 £55,500




Alfold Community WBC Easement

£12,500 £61,200




Alfold Football Club puts its best foot forward – whilst Cranleigh’s 106 monies go to A Cranleigh top fee-paying school!

Do you really trust our MP and former Health Secretary to run our country?


An investigation by the Health Service Journal – the country’s premier health publication has revealed that despite multiple warnings about the national 999 IT system they were ignored by both SW Surrey MP former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and his successor Matt Hancock.

Patients have died after the government overruled multiple safety concerns raised about an IT system used to triage 16 million NHS patients a year.


On at least three occasions where patients triaged by the NHS Pathways software died months, sometimes years, after central agencies were alerted to safety concerns by ambulance trusts – but declined to make changes requested.

NHS Digital – the organisation that oversees NHS Pathways assessed the complaints but made changes only where “clinically necessary”. It has repeatedly asked coroners to “strike from the record” concerns raised about the safety of NHS Pathways’ advice.

Since 2015, coroners investigating 11 patient deaths have called for changes to the NHS Pathways software, used by NHS 111 and 999 services to triage patient calls, to prevent future deaths.

Coroners have raised these concerns with health and social care secretary Matt Hancock, his predecessor Jeremy Hunt, NHS England, NHS Digital, the Care Quality Commission and service providers. Although NHS Pathways is run by NHS Digital, overall responsibility rests with NHS England.

Agonal breathing

Among the cases uncovered by HSJ, two women – Caragh Melling, 37 and Barbara Patterson, 67 – with agonal breathing died on 27 December 2014 and 2 January 2015 respectively after NHS Pathways was used to triage their calls. Agonal breathing is sudden, irregular gasps of breath, requiring immediate CPR.

Two separate coroners’ investigations following their deaths raised concerns about how agonal breathing was handled by NHS Pathways and recommended changes to prevent future deaths.

However, between 2010 and 2014, at least three different ambulance trusts raised concerns with the national NHS Pathways team on four occasions about the software failing to advise call handlers to identify life-threatening agonal breathing. 

In both the women’s cases, ambulance trusts told the coroner no changes were made to address their concerns about NHS Pathways before the deaths.

In a report sent to NHS Pathways’ clinical director in April 2016 regarding Ms Melling’s death, the coroner stated:

“NHS Pathways were contacted in 2014 to raise the absence of the breathing analysis tool as being a cause for concern. No action appears to have been taken. I also understand that the medical director of the ambulance trust has again raised concerns at the national level, but it is unclear whether any action is being taken.”

However, said some changes were made to the early assessment of patient breathing in 2014, ahead of the two deaths.

Both the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS Digital claimed that, despite concerns raised by ambulance trusts, there had been no faults in the system for treating agonal breathing and any fault lay with call handlers, not the software.  NHS Digital confirmed it declined to make changes to agonal breathing requested by a provider in 2014, over concerns it would delay CPR.

It is not clear whether ambulance trusts’ concerns about NHS Pathway’s handling of agonal breathing have been resolved. NHS Digital said further amendments were made in June 2015, 2016 and 2017.

However, one ambulance trust source said several ambulance providers have continued to log concerns about agonal breathing.

Lone callers

In a separate case, another coroner raised concerns with NHSE in July 2017 after the death of Colin Sluman, 68, the previous year. Among other recommendations, the coroner said changes were needed to how NHS Pathways prompted call handlers to ask whether a patient was alone to prevent future deaths.

NHS England responded to the coroner saying it had raised these concerns with NHS Digital’s lead clinical author for NHS Pathways, Darren Worwood, who declined to make any changes and had said responsibility for assessing whether a patient is alone was with 999 and 111 providers.

In September 2018, another man, John Scott, died and a separate coroner again raised concerns, this time directly with Mr Worwood, about the way NHS Pathways advised call handlers to deal with patients alone when calling.

In its response to the coroner, NHS Digital again said determining whether a patient was alone was the responsibility of 999/111 providers, not the NHS Pathways software.

Software updates

The NHS Pathways software is updated twice a year but it is unclear whether these updates directly address concerns raised by coroners and NHS providers about the treatment of patients that are alone and those exhibiting agonal breathing.

One ambulance trust told HSJ that improvements would be made to NHS Pathway’s advice concerning patients alone this year, or possibly early next year. However, NHS Digital has previously stated no change was required.

 NHS Digital says there had been no faults in the NHS Pathways system in agonal breathing and patients alone cases and blamed any failures on local 999 and 111 providers not using the system correctly. In some of the other deaths raised by coroners, NHS Digital agreed to make changes to the software.

NHS Digital said: “We take any coroner’s report we receive very seriously and work with our partner organisations across the NHS to ensure that we respond appropriately and make the necessary changes to the system if required. It is categorically untrue that there are any cases where concerns have been raised and changes have not been made to the system where they have been deemed clinically necessary.”

However, the organisation will not share the NHS Pathways incident log. This would provide a full record of users’ concerns raised with NHS Digital. It said it would take too long for staff to extract the information requested. 

Responding specifically to concerns raised about agonal breathing, NHS Digital said it “strongly refuted there was a problem with the system” and said, in the case of Mrs Patterson’s death, ambulance call handlers “were not probing adequately in assessing the breathing pattern”.

What is the NHS Pathways?

NHS Pathways snap

NHS Pathways is a piece of clinical software, run by NHS Digital, that is used to assist non-clinically trained call handlers to elicit information, offer advice and dispatch medical assistance based on a patient’s call.

It is used to triage all NHS 111 calls in England and many, but not all, 999 calls. Overall, it is used to assess and triage more than 16 million calls a year.

It also powers NHS 111 Online, a website and app that allows patients to enter symptoms directly into the software and receive triage advice without human involvement. Launched in 2017, NHS 111 Online has been used a million times and, as of February this year accounted for one in 10 uses of NHS Pathways.

NHS 111 and 999 providers are expected to strictly adhere to prompts and scripts in the software, or risk losing their licence to use it. However, in some instances, providers have created local workarounds where they feel there are gaps in the advice offered.

The software covers more than 800 symptom pathways and its content is overseen by a national clinical governance group, hosted by the Royal College of GPs, which regularly reviews and updates the content twice a year.

NHS Digital says when potential issues are raised about the software, a clinical assessment is made within 24 hours. When changes are needed to NHS Pathways, these changes are independently clinically assessed and tested before going live.

The current senior responsible officer for NHS Pathways is NHS England’s digital development director, Sam Shah, who has recently shifted to the new central tech unit NHSX.


The investigation also reveals that several ambulance trusts have created “local workarounds” to fill gaps in the advice offered by NHS Pathways. This was despite many saying their call handlers, who have no clinical training, have no discretion to deviate from the NHS Pathways advice, and one claiming any deviation would risk NHS Digital withdrawing their licence to use the software. In February this year, a coroner told NHS Digital:

“There appears to be a contradiction between the call handlers being told they have no discretion when using NHS Pathways and their being given additional guidance for certain calls. This contradiction could cause confusion.”

NHS Digital said: “NHS Pathways is not a ‘scripted’ system where there is no ability to deviate from the exact wording presented. Call handlers are trained to form appropriate ‘probing questions’ when needed, or to rephrase questions safely and effectively.”

Neither NHSE nor the DHSC answered questions posed by HSJ regarding the process for responding to specific safety concerns raised about NHS Pathways, including in cases where patients later died.

In a statement, a DHSC spokesman said: “We take any concerns raised by coroners very seriously and as part of our long-term plan we want the NHS to be the safest healthcare system in the world. Where coroner reports are issued to the department for a response, we work with the relevant bodies to ensure concerns are carefully considered and learnings are identified, so that appropriate action can be taken.”

An NHSE spokesman said: “Assessment systems used by 999 or NHS 111 services are regularly reviewed by clinical experts to ensure that they classify a patient’s needs as accurately as possible, based on the answers given by the person making the call, and therefore give them the right response or advice.

“While incidents like these are therefore extremely rare, where concerns are raised they are clinically investigated and any necessary changes made.”


Guess what – ‘Your Waverley’ has started to LISTEN!


The recent election results revealed something quite extraordinary at ‘Your Waverley.’ 

That it needs to listen more to the communities it serves to ensure the borough feels more like ‘Our Waverley.’

As part of a whole programme of change planned by the New Guard – a coalition of Greens, Labour, Lib Dems and Farnham Residents’ – and hopefully, Conservatives once they stop grizzling, to listen more. Heading the change is Waverley’s Chief Executive Tom Horwood who, as you can see,  is already in listening mode. So if you want to be heard get in touch to-day July 15


Screen Shot 2019-07-05 at 20.40.48.png

Even the head honcho at Waverley Towers is seeking new ways of engaging with the public now the New Guard – Progressive Alliance – holds the reins. Tom Horwood and the new brooms have already begun sweeping in a new way of working and engaging with the public – and we say, about time too.

Let’s just hope they don’t start sweeping away those huge cobwebs in The Towers darkest corners -Ye Gods we could be history!

Screen Shot 2019-07-05 at 20.40.13.png







A Government Commission says councils ‘should shame developers of the worst housing plans.’


Maybe, just maybe, ‘Your Waverley’s’ planning officers should take a good look at a report due this week.

‘That council should make an example of ugly building design and that communities should be given greater input to ensure better quality homes.’

The Buiding Better, Building Beautiful Commission (BBBBC) would have a field day in the borough of Waverley. A local authority which has, in the past consistently and completely ignored the public’s concern for the type and style of new development which is being literally “dumped” on their doorsteps, many of which are in rural and semi-rural villages.

The Commission has concluded that while the current planning system can deliver beautiful places to live, it does so, “rarely.” And, residents should be given a greater voice.

Both wannabe prime ministers, Boris Johnson and Jeremy Hunt are dodging the housing crisis by failing to set out sufficiently ambitious plans to tackle the housing shortage. Though here at the WW we suspect their spin doctors are advising them to steer clear of the thorny issue of building more AND BETTER homes. Particularly here in Farnham which is currently being swamped?

So Waverley Borough Council – the Government’s message to YOU is: SAY NO TO UGLINESS.

Screen Shot 2019-07-08 at 09.41.38.png


If you have wondered how difficult it is to get robust planning decisions at ‘Your Waverley’ watch this clip.

%d bloggers like this: