Is Cranleigh Village Private Nursing Home Trust, taking a leaf out of Mother Theresa May’s book and simply trying to run down the clock? Because the summer has come – and gone! And… still no date for a decision? Is it still “finalising” its negotiations with “stakeholders.”
If they are responding directly to questions posed via email then it might be worth getting someone to send them an email posing the following questions.
1. Could someone explain exactly whose community these 20 beds are intended to be used by?
2. There has been considerable confusion over many years concerning the description of the development. As recently as the public consultation at The Baptist Church Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust were still referring to the development as ‘A Hospital’ rather than, more accurately, a ‘Care Home.’ Why?
3. The wrongly named CVHT is also giving the impression that it is providing facilities in the existing Village Hospital when these facilities are clearly being provided by The League of Friends. Why is it doing this?
4. The Lof F is a separate outfit with separate charitable accounts and has distanced itself from CVHT? So where is the ‘community benefit’ of this ‘Care Home’?
5. Can the Parish Council explain why no public consultation took place before it sold parish-owned land, for £1, to CVHT? For 20 years, this sale has provided no benefit to the village whatsoever. Given where it is now, why not just divert the remaining monies to upgrade the existing Cranleigh Village Hospital?
6. Will the Parish Council explain why the Covenant attached to the sale of this land was so loosely worded and why it failed to take the land back after the five year period clause mentioned in the covenant? Had that happened the Parish Council could have been saved from this disastrous sale.
It is rumoured that the Parish Councillors could be sued for failing to comply with the terms of the Covenant. Are the Parish Councillors aware of this?
7. Can the Parish Council explain who was responsible for ensuring the Conditions attached to the planning permission for road improvements, over a decade ago, on the Bruce McKenzie Fields were not carried out? Who has now paid for those roadworks?
8. Why did CVHT Trustee, Mr. Vrijland, put a ransom strip around the land he provided in return for the hospital site? Ransom strips are normally put in place by developers looking to secure future benefit. What benefit does he hope to receive from this ransom strip, and shouldn’t it be removed immediately?
9. Residents of Cranleigh and the outlying villages genuinely believed the community beds would be for them – now we understand they could be for the Guildford & Waverley Commissioning Group – which covers from Churt to Worplesdon/Little Bookham and Guildford. Is that the case? If so, then the project was mis-sold to local residents and businesses. Should they not get their money back? This is tantamount to extracting money from people under false pretenses.
10. Are the community beds in the proposed new Care Home time limited? Will they disappear after a period of time? If that is the case what recompense will the village receive for the additional income that these beds will generate for the privately owned Care Home?
11. Can the members of the Parish Council tell us if they would have even considered giving away parish-owned land to-day for an 80-bed privately owned Care Home and residential accommodation in the heart of the village without any recompense or community benefit whatsoever?
12. Why should Cranleigh be providing more affordable accommodation for Surrey’s health workers when there are already hundreds of homes being built in the immediate vicinity. Is this another ploy for this privately owned company to make money at the expense of Cranleigh residents.
13. Many people who contributed to the fundraising campaign, believe they have been duped. The village where they were born is now set to provide a site for a national care home operator, at their expense, for a business which is, apparently, up for sale and in debt!
Cranleigh will now have to suffer more development – which means more traffic – and associated facilities to satisfy the needs of wider Surrey residents who did not provide one penny toward it on land given away by the parish for a playing field with a ransom strip around it!
Andy Webb (nothing to do with the WW! who is trying to get to the bottom of this saga wrote this on the Cranleigh Community Group board, which is attracting followers, faster than knotweed can grow? It contains a baffling response from CVHT Chairman Robin Fawkner.
Bearing in mind that the planning application lodged last November and was due to be heard and determined on 28th January, and ever-since – now appears to have gone AWOL.
Please note: CVHT “Still talking to stakeholders?” Cannot appear at a public meeting because of the Purdah of the May elections? The next public consultation event will be held in the Summer? What – after the planning application has been cosidered – or before?
WAKEY, WAKEY CRANLEIGH PEOPLE YOU HAVE BEEN UNCERIMONIOUSLY STUFFED – OR OUR NAME IS NOT INCEY WINCEY SPIDER – AND IF WE ARE WRONG WE WILL CLIMB UP OUR SPOUT?