Cool it boys and girls and play nicely?

This is a message that Waverley Borough Council Deputy leader Paul Follows posted on his Facebook page earlier this week.

Here at the Waverley Web, we too have had a few very unpleasant remarks made about the Parliamentary Candidate standing in the South West Surrey constituency against Jeremy Hunt. Thankfully, we can remove them before they go into the comments box, and sometimes, after. However, some keyboard warriors appear to think they can insult at will.

Some people seem to believe that the Conservatives have some sort of given right to hold both the SW Surrey and the Guildford & Cranleigh seats in Parliament – and that the voting fodder is just that, fodder. Residents to be wooed every few years and then dropped once they start to concentrate on the bigger picture and secure a seat at Westminster. 

What the residents of Waverley would like to see is a little more emphasis on local issues.

Waverley Planners dared to upset the supporters of a Cranleigh Charity that had its planning application thrown out on Wednesday. You can read why here:

Power to the people of the eastern villages as they joined Waverley Planners to give a controversial Care Home development the order of the boot.

Cranleigh’s  Community Board has been fizzing ever since Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee refused Cranleigh Village Hospital and HC-1’s scheme to build an 80-bed care home and a staff hostel on a site once owned by villagers in Knowle Lane.

Judging by the e-mail messages we have received – and the on-line squabbling, it appears now the dust is settling the blame game has begun. Perhaps even an appeal against the decision has begun too?

So, perhaps our readers and our many correspondents over there in the eastern villages, could enlighten us – on who comes top of the poll in the pin the tail on the p/rat game?

Cranleigh’s very own Batty Bamford, purported to be a local businessman,  has blamed the parish council spokesperson, the editor of the Cranleigh Community Board and a young villager who was presumably asked to present the petition and speak up for objectors.

Waverley has been blamed by another supporter who fired off e-mails all over the country, for “dragging its feet.” Others are claiming it was the planning officers, the councillors and presumably the office cat? Oh, yes we almost forgot. The Trust’s planning consultants – Tetlow King blames Facebook and The Waverley Web. As if any seriously minded planner or officer would take one jot of notice of anything we say, dream on!

Others claim it was the Trust’s fault – for not providing villagers what it said on the tin. They dug deep into their pockets and bank accounts for a hospital and day hospital, for their use, and were offered a Private Care Home and accommodation block, to be shared by, what appeared to them,  for anyone, any-time, anywhere.

We would like to hear from anyone else out there who would like to name anyone else they would like to blame for what has become a toxic chapter in Cranleigh’s history? contact@waverleyweb.com

A 20-year slog to replace beds lost in Cranleigh Village Hospital ended in defeat for a charity hell-bent on joining forces with a commercial partner to build an 80-bed private care home in the heart of Cranleigh. The application was refused by 15 votes to 5 with 1 abstention.

After a short hiatus, when members of the Joint Planning Committee were told the applicant had sought a deferment, which was promptly refused by majority vote –  Due to Chairman  Richard Cole’s role, on Cranleigh Parish Council’s planning committee he felt unable to consider the application with “an open mind,” and left.  His deputy David Beaman took the chair.

 Cranleigh councillors were not alone in their opposition to a development which has been eagerly awaited for a year. During which time public meetings have been held by objectors, petitions containing over 5,000 signatures raised by Alfold resident Andy Webb. Due to Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust refusal to meet the public who backed them, the mood of objectors grew darker by the day. Three Cranleigh councillors have been verbally attacked in the street by one of its Trustees, a former parish councillor, as a result – the public mood worsened.

Outlining the scheme officer Patrick Arthurs explained why officers concluded that the development in an ASVI – an Area of Strategic Visual Importance – was unacceptable and should be REFUSED. The development would damage the intrinsic character and beauty of countryside beyond the Green Belt, and the impact of the scale and mass of large buildings – a care home/20 community beds and a 26-unit health worker building- must be proportionate to the impact for the principle to be considered acceptable. Harm must be balanced against benefit.

He said previous consents obtained by the charity had lapsed ...

.. the scheme before members was significantly larger and, despite the benefit of community beds did not outweigh the harm the whole development would cause. There was no formal agreement with stakeholders, including Surrey County Council that the community beds would remain in perpetuity. Neither was there any definite evidence of the catchment area it would serve.

This was confirmed in person later by a  representative of the Surrey Integrated Care Partnership. 

Cllr Patricia Ellis, who called in the application, claimed Cranleigh residents would be “prioritised” She argued the health sector had changed since the original concept of a hospital and day hospital was mooted. She then applauded the superb outpatient, X-Ray, physiotherapy and podiatry and other services now being offered in the old cottage hospital. 

There were many excellent nursing homes in and around Cranleigh, but most were “very expensive,”  Her claim that the site was accessible to car parks and good public transport was later contradicted by Cllr Paul Follows, who said he relied on public transport every time he visited Cranleigh, and public transport was anything but accessible!

Cllr Gerry Hyman questioned why no Community Infrastructure Levy was charged and why couldn’t he find all the viability statements? He objected to such a huge building, and, against a background of laughter from councillors and the public gallery, said couldn’t understand why there was no highway objection in such a  congested road?

Speaking for  Cranleigh Parish Council Rowena Tyler said the council had supported the delivery of a Hospital and Day Hospital. The Charity had witnessed the council’s unanimous refusal of this commercial scheme for a profit-making organisation and its reasons for doing so were based on strong planning grounds. The land transfer had included a covenant, and the council had believed the beds would be for the Cranleigh communities use,  not for the whole of Surrey. It could not support the hostel, which combined with the 80-bed care home was totally inappropriate overdevelopment in an ASVI.  A 1.8metre fence, she argued, would be of no benefit to the community.

Villager Kathy Plank spoke for the 5,000 people who had written in and signed the petition she held. She described the huge fundraising efforts to build a replacement  hospital and day hospital;  There wasn’t a man, woman or child a business, school or organisation who hadn’t proudly displayed the CVHT logo as they swam, sang, cycled played cricket, football; held tea and bridge parties, and enjoyed the 60th Anniversary D-Day Concert; all of which produced over £1.4m in 10 years. Many bankers orders were made out and money jars filled – and the coffers of the Charity coffers had grown. Legacies were left in Wills.

Alfold Cllr Kevin Deanus lambasted the scheme, saying there were eight good policy reasons for refusing it. First, it came in with a scheme for 2,400 sqm then 4,000 sqm (lapsed) and then 6,180 sqm, a 48% increase – if they had wanted to squeeze any more onto this site they would have needed a crowbar.  I will object.

Farnham’s Carole Cockburn said she would be opposing it on its sheer mass and scale.

By the time Cranleigh Cllr Liz Townsend flipped on her microphone, the fate of the scheme was signed and sealed. She registered her concern that SCC only made block bookings of beds for one-year, and the CCG for five years, and reiterated others concerns on the impact on the ASVI.

Not a problem said Cllr Anna James. The borough needed – lots of old people’s homes, and if there were lots of beds in the private care home that weren’t required, then the county council could have even more. Cllr Ellis agreed, if Cranleigh people didn’t want the beds they could be filled by others from elsewhere. However, Cllr Brain Edmonds said:  “Well, I certainly wouldn’t want a bed in that home!”

Cllr Jackie Keen believed, although the county council may get the beds it needs, Cranleigh would get all the traffic and yet more development.

 Deputy Leader Cllr  Paul Follows: wondered what would happen to the community beds if  Surrey County Council’s money ran out? What happens when they cannot afford them – will they go into private use? And, I have a real issue with student dormitories, being described as “affordable homes.’

After the vote 15 against, five for and one abstention. The committee went on to consider an application by Surrey County Council to build 91 homes on two school sites in Parsonage Road and off Church lane, Cranleigh was also refused. The subject of another post.

A link to the webcast.

https://youtu.be/dnjIVxHdkyQ

Background notes.

We just might be in for a real bun fight?

First Up – is the 80 bed-Private Care Home including 20-community beds – that 270 people have been eagerly awaiting and over 5,000 people have objected to. Villagers have Cllr Patricia Ellis to thank for calling it in after officers decided to refuse the scheme under powers delegated to them. She will no doubt claim that she has been prompted into doing so due to the huge local support for the scheme? Let us all hope that a few declarations of interest are registered? Perhaps even the odd financial detail missing from the report? Ah, well we can live in hopes for some transparency on this toxic development which, thanks to a charity’s duplicity, has divided a once, happy and cohesive community.

Now in an e-mail sent to us by one of its supposed supporters,  guess who the Charity is blaming for the delay of an application which has been languishing at Waverley Towers for a year? Yes, you guessed… YOUR WAVERLEY – which has been dragging its feet!

Is this Cranleigh’s Brightwells? Because it has a fair few things in common with the shenanigans going on in our town. Using public land; public buildings; public money; the council claims were all being used for the benefit of the community, a community whose 10,000 residents opposed the redevelopment of East Street? Going as far as petitioning HM The Queen to allow our town to declare its Independence from ‘Your Waverley.’  Let us hope Cranleigh gets a better outcome?

Is Wife​ of Brian being supported by Son of Bainbridge?

Following: Along comes a shedload of new homes proposed by Surrey County Council, (91 – probably more when it comes to the details) because unless they can sell the land in order to generate £9m for the site which presently houses a Church of England Middle School and an Infants School just a hop, skip and a jump away – they cannot build replacement new schools on Glebelands School’s playing fields in Parsonage Road. Who needs playing fields anyway when the development gets an all-weather pitch, partially paid for by Berkeley Homes and originally intended for “community use? Why don’t SCC  have enough money, we hear you cry?

Because of its reckless investments in retail development in places such as here in Farnham’s Blightwells Development.

Will ‘Your Waverley’ be shaken and stirred by the shocking revelations on Blightwells?

The Treasury has clamped down on local authority borrowing amidst fears that reckless investments could bankrupt local councils. Borrowing which was hiked up by one percentage point last week. It is now at its highest level for four years. Some claim the move will put many capital projects at risk.

Surrey County Council says the school expansion is necessary and places are badly-needed for the 2,800 homes proposed at Dunsfold Garden village, the existing and expanding populations of Rudgwick, Cranleigh, Ewhurst, Alfold, Dunsfold, Shamley Green and Wonersh for the further two thousand homes consented, some of which are now under construction.

Then follows the new Knowle Park Initiative Country Park.

This will provide leisure space for all the new homes. Almost three hundred of which are being provided for the “people of Cranleigh” by developers and park owners- Nick and Rowena Vrijland – better known as the “Flying Dutchman” because most of the time he flies by the seat of his well-worn developer pants.

The man who says he “wants to give back to the people of Cranleigh” whilst trousering a very nice little windfall for himself, has already built homes on part of the parklands he wants to conserve. WW hopes the planners at Waverley ensure they tie him up in knots on his 106 legal agreements. Including the use of his very-wide bridleway which joins up with his “emergency access” at the other end? Having pulled the wool over the very blind eyes of Waverley Planners in the past many wonders If Knowle Park will become KPI – Phase 3.

So watch this space – it could all be happening for ‘Cranleigh New Town Tonight.’

The meeting starts at 6.30pm.

Is it any wonder that when the Waverley Web was founded we chose the well-known saying…

‘Oh what a tangled web they weave when once they practise to deceive?’

An Ellis rides again to the rescue of a Cranleigh Charity who villagers claim has duped them of their cash.

Will ‘Wife of Brian’ succeed in scuppering a decision by Waverley Planners to ditch a controversial care home scheme?

Will ‘Wife of Brian’ succeed in scuppering a decision by Waverley Officers to ditch a controversial care home scheme?

The answer to that little conundrum – will the Cranleigh Private Care Home application be determined by Waverley Members next Wednesday? Yes, of course, it will.

 The planners’ report states that the scheme, which was to be refused under delegated powers, will now go to the council’s main committee due to the large public response. Although it mentions 241 letters of support and 253 – letters of objection – no mention is made of the 4,500 residents who signed a petition.

But of course, we know, that they know, that everyone knows, that it has been called in by Cllr Patricia Ellis? Residents and councillors have wondered for weeks, if not months, why there has been an unprecedented deviation from the normal procedure for call-ins for this particular application? An application which has languished inside Waverley Towers since  November 2018?

So villagers are asking us?

Is wife of Brian is being assisted by non-other than ‘Son of Bainbridge!’

WW hears from residents over there – that the question on everyone’s lips in Cranleigh is – ‘Whether or not Daniel Bainbridge, the Borough Solicitor and Deputy Monitoring officer, for Waverley, has declared an interest in the Cranleigh Care Home application?  If he hasn’t maybe he should have done because his father, John, is a Trustee of Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust.  

 Bainbridge-Snr.

Angry villagers, more than 4,500 of whom are opposed to the privately owned care home being granted planning consent, have bombarded the council with petitions and letters of objection in their attempts to prevent it. After being told officers were recommending refusal under powers delegated to them, they wonder why the Monitoring Officer was so determined to allow Cllr Ellis to call it in – and support it.

We have received dozens of messages from donors, asking if Daniel Bainbridge, the deputy monitoring officer,  had a hand in ensuring that the “infamous late-call-in saga request, despite being out of time, was acceded to?”

Have John Bainbridge and his fellow trustees been aided and abetted – wittingly or unwittingly by…

Bainbridge-Jnr.

 Bainbridge Junior could be in a position to give them the inside track on what is and isn’t happening in the Planning Department at Waverley.

Opposition from local residents – who begrudge every penny of their £1.5m hard-earned cash going into a privately owned business  – and opposition by Cranleigh Parish Councillors has done nothing to dampen the enthusiasm of the few – VERY FEW – hardcore supporters of the privately owned care home trying to get it over the line.  

Just to recap for those just back from the Moon a Cranleigh Charity – Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust (CVHT)- was formed 20 years ago to build, yes you guessed, a hospital and a day hospital for Cranleigh and the nearby villages. The Charity has been dogged by difficulties, including numerous changes in NHS structures. Another of which is now on the way with the creation of Surrey Heartlands into which Guildford & Waverley will be incorporated.

However, a planning application to build a 60-bed  Private Care Home, which was recently changed to a “Nursing Home” and 20 community beds, has been languishing in Waverley Towers since November 2018. Why?

The Waverley Web understands that, as we type, a complaint about Daniel Bainbridge is now winging its way to the Ombudsman in order to establish exactly how and when Bainbridge Junior registered his conflict of interest in relation to the proposed Cranleigh Care Home.   Another is on its way to the Charities Commission enquiring how and why the trustees of CVHT can resolutely refuse to return donations to those who ask when the Trust is clearly guilty of operating what one disgruntled former supporter described as ‘a cloak and mirrors deception.’

A Charity that took money from local men, women and young children, under false pretences. Pledged a hospital and a day hospital, on land sold by villagers for £1 and is now building an £18m commercial care home, on land covered by a covenant. A covenant changed in 2013 by an exchange of e-mails! 

Now, Cranleigh faces the depressing prospect of the planning application for the privately owned care home being waved through by members with little or no connection to the village.  Meanwhile, Cranleigh residents are not only out of pocket personally, but they’re also out of pocket at a parochial level as the late unlamented husband of Councillor Ellis sold off their land valued at £250,000 upon which the privately owned care home is to be built. All without so much as a by your leave, or a mandate from the community –  for a measly £1! They are describing it as a dastardly act of daylight robbery!

HAS AN ATTACK OF BLIGHT HIT BLIGHTWELLS?

What was that sound we heard from ‘Your Waverley’s Overview & Scrutiny Committee?

This is not any food, but it may not be  M & S food? 

A development rumoured to have now lost its “flagship tenant” M&S Foods.

A toxic development supported by Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council with squillions of  – OUR MONEY!

Cllr Merryweather, a newly elected Lib Dem, and an accountant by profession, had obviously been burning the midnight oil for months delving into the underbelly of the finances of a development opposed by many thousands of Farnham residents. A scheme which was subject of a Judicial Review, saw the demolition of the treasured Redgrave theatre, the loss of the beloved Marlborough Head Pub, The Gostrey Old People’s Centre, open spaces and much more and which has brought traffic chaos to the beleaguered town. It has been a running sore for over 20 years.

Cllr Merryweather calmly fired one salvo after another into the hushed meeting – whilst finance officers gaped like Nemo at the revelations that the development would not, as had been predicted by the Tory administration, produce a £900,000 a year bonus for the council, but a possible, £415,000 or less. 

He said the last financial appraisal was in 2016. But now he would update them on the base-case numbers, reeling off a stream of figures in quick-fire succession.

Perhaps we should say here, we are not Accountants – just your average Jo public – listening to a small room stuffed with people, without the benefit to seeing the screen, the following can be confirmed by the clip of the meeting below.

• By the time Brightwells – (only WW and residents call it”Blightwells)  is completed, both now and in future years; the scheme will owe the General Fund £4.5m  and cash of £3.1m . and would have non-recurring revenue of £400,000. The payback time for the former is 2031/32 and the latter 2028/29.

• WBC had contributed  £400,000 worth of property into the development – which had included the tennis club; The Gostrey Centre and more. It had received £800,00 towards the Memorial Hall, now a dual-use venue. What was the true cost of this development asks the WW?

• In 2 years time, ‘Your Waverley’ is committed to a £500,000/£650,000 bill for resurfacing the Sainsburys’ Car Park. Which is “unfunded,” and would have to come from the General Fund and if borrowed – over 50 years, would cost the council – £25,000 per year.

• MM said The ‘Jury was our’ in the prospect of the development producing 450 jobs. 

• The Dogflud Car Park – had received  £514,000 in compensation from the from developer Crest Nicholson. But the costs to the council would be equivalent.

• It was predicted that the South Street car park would have to close, resulting in a large loss of revenue from Farnham Leisure Centre, a centre already suffering due to the lack of car parking. 

• Waverley had agreed to maintain in perpetuity the whole  Brightwells Yard site. A maintenance contract which would, most likely, have to be undertaken by private contractors at an estimated cost of – wait for it – £50,000 p.a.

Surely not for the 50-year life of the project?!? 

But it gets worse:

Waverley received £300,000 from SCC to off-set its car parking charges. However, WBC agreed to pay SCC £50,000 per year for the next 150 years of the contract.

An item which was –  LISTED BY THE TORY ADMINISTRATION AS INCOME! SURELY NOT – IT CANNOT BE TRUE – CAN IT?

• The capital received from Surrey County Council over 3 years of £2.7m to be used for improvements to leisure centres in Farnham, Haslemere and Godalming.

Ominous or what? Not a single mention of the £14m which the Tories announced weeks before the May elections to fund a spiffing new Leisure Centre for Cranleigh and the eastern villages?

To a hushed audience, one of whom was the former council leader – was she hiding – because the WW could only see something resembling steam coming from the corner where Julia Potts cowered; he continued saying nobody needed any reminders about the dismal state of the retail sector!

 “We all live in the same world and know what the High Steet environment is like. So – will we hit the commercial rent base? We predict, certainly not in the first 2 years.”  

By the time, Cllr Merryweather began talking about possible lets of the residential properties everyone looked punchdrunk, and the atmosphere in the room was anything but merry Cllr Merryweather!

As for the debate – a deafening silence fell over Committee Room. Even Cllr Hyman a long opponent of the scheme said he needed time to digest the presentation, before commenting. Rendered Speechless? Cllr Hyman – never? 

In fairness to the Tory Group, and Cllr Potts, in particular, wasn’t it Former Leader Robert ~Know-less and Portfolio Holder Adam Taylor-Smith Knowless who masterminded the project? The latter who regularly flagellates the new coalition administration every morning when he gets on the train?

 However, councillors, in general, are laymen/women  – did they read their papers? –

But,  the Waverley Web asks? What part did the council’s financial experts – the plumply salaried Chief Executive and Financial officers like Graham Clarke- play in this possible fiscal fiasco.  Answers please on a postcard to contact@waverleyweb.com

WW asks? Should there be an independent inquiry?

You can listen to the meeting here- but it comes with a health warning. Pour yourself a good measure of gin and tonic/whisky or wine first. You may need it.

https://youtu.be/LS4fpHVT4MA