A Tory rant has upset ‘Your Waverley’s residents.

Featured

Right here – right now – the residents of Waverley are grappling with failing businesses, COVID or post COVID, hanging onto their jobs and homeschooling their children.

There are others, with nothing better to do than criticise what people wear, and what their background is when they are on Zoom.

 

Dear Councillor Follows,

Here are our WW guys views on your attire for the recent Full Council meeting of Waverley Borough Council.

  • If you were wearing jogging bottoms or were sitting in your underpants – we don’t give a damned. We are far more concerned about what you say – and how you represent our views.
  • We think your sartorial elegance was exemplary – you didn’t need a tie.
  • After 9 hours on Zoom – because we presume like us, you have a day job too – we are amazed you can even see straight. Our eyes are bloodshot and look like road maps. Our ears are ringing like the bells of St Clements – and our brains are turning to mush.
  • As for the disgraceful remarks from a former council leader about officers’ children daring to rear their nasty little voices in the background during your hallowed meetings. What exactly are your staff supposed to do? Put their children into care during COVID?
  • We will not comment on the “unmade bed bit’ for a councillor who we presume has to use his bedroom for Zoom calls rather than his study! Surely everyone has a separate study these days don’t they. Perish the thought that they are deprived!
  • Except to say:

“It is better to keep your mouth closed and be thought to be a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.”

You can watch it here: No room for Zoom. A Waverley spat but not as bad as Handforth.

Taken from Cllr Follows Facebook Page

That we still have a councillor using their speaking time to comment that they don’t think someone has dressed appropriately in 2021 is a disgrace.

Can I ask, are residents alright that after 9 hours on zoom today I am not wearing a tie to this council meeting this evening?

PS: below is me dressing offensively to some conservative councillors tonight. You would think they would like blue?

Has a Cranleigh Charity’s planning battle entered the realms of farce?

Featured

Waverley Planners were reluctantly called to yet another meeting on Wednesday to REFUSE a planning application from the Cranleigh Village Health Trust.

ACT ONE – To defer or not to defer? That was the first question?

REQUEST REFUSED.

There was a feeling of de-ja-vu for planners as they considered another revised scheme from a beleaguered charity that refuses to take No for an answer, regardless of how many times it is refused, or costs to the charity or the taxpayer.

A controversial scheme for a private nursing home that some councillors claimed could become a Big White Elephant in an Area designated as an Area of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI). The site known as The Paddock Field valued at £250,000 was sold by the parish council for £1 – in a land swap agreed over two decades ago for a Hospital/Day Hospital and Health Centre.

After 20 years, it has morphed into a 64-bed Private Care Home – a residential block of flats for key workers, and 16 community beds. Beds, which officers stressed, were NO longer free at the point of delivery and had no health or local authority backing.

 The Waverley Web has lost count of where the latest scheme ranks in the pecking order of the former HOSPITAL Trust that changed its name to  HEALTH Trust.

Plan A for a hospital was granted as an ‘exception’ and permission lapsed. Plan B was dumped for Plan C, and then Plan D and then E. Now after a string of refusals, a cancelled appeal, deferrals, and re-designs it was back on the table again this week for yet another lambasting from councillors across Waverley’s eastern region.

 Planning officer Kate Edwards – said the applicant wanted to defer the scheme for yet further negotiations with the county council, which had withdrawn its support, contradicted statements made previously.   Mrs Edwards said it had also argued that…

... the statements I have made in the report before you are prejudicial.

In the ongoing blame game – It had also complained that the council had not allowed it to work up a legal agreement for various ways the community beds could be used and funded. This was, said Mrs Edwards, not the council’s practise and was not prudent when officers recommended refusal.

Any community benefit in the previous refusal was now further reduced – as Surrey County Council and its partners The Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) had withdrawn support and now intended using an entirely different model of care in patient’s homes.

Godalming Cllr Steve Cosser was”sympathetic” to the Trust’s difficulties and supported deferral. This was promptly refused by the committee, believing any further delays of the long-running saga should be resisted.  Cllr George Wilson reckoned Cranleigh people had waited long enough as the scheme had been hanging around for “such a long time, we should get on with it.” 

Full marks to Officer Edwards, who despite the noises off, forged ahead undeterred and composed, with her presentation, and reasons for the recommendation. 

There was a total of 465 objections, 39 added in the past few days, and 240 in support. The Applicant had claimed letters had been duplicated – so after further analysis, letters in support had been reduced!

She described the proposed two and three-storey care home and accommodation block buildings as very large, and very close to the Downs Link footpath.

Rowena Tyler spoke against the scheme on behalf of Cranleigh Parish Council, also an adjacent landowner. Whilst it had long supported the creation of a new hospital/day hospital and GP led Health Centre, a use which had been “exceptional” and backed by the public, this was no longer the case and there was now NO community benefit.   The land had been designated an ASVI in Waverley’s Local Plan, and there were restrictive planning policies against it.  Health and Social care supporters had all withdrawn.

“This scheme is for two very large buildings on a green field outside the settlement of Cranleigh, for beds, that the authorities say they no longer need or want and backed by an anonymous benefactor of whom we have no details. There is no CIL -( funding for infrastructure) and therefore no benefit to the Cranleigh community, and we strongly object.

Andy Webb spoke up for the Campaign Group that had, over time, generated petitions with more than 5,000 signatures opposing the development and calling for the land to be returned to village leaders. There would be a detrimental effect on residents of Wiskar Drive, increased hazards at the Junction of Knowle Lane and High Street, in an area that floods.

With no support from the ITC, SCC or the Cranleigh GP practice, “which isn’t what you would expect.” The community beds were no longer free or needed. There were numerous nursing homes within a three-mile radius and many more beyond.

He said: “The people of Cranleigh don’t want a great big Monolith that will become a white elephant in the years to come.

 Arguing for the applicant John Sneddon maintained there were numerous community benefits and every effort had been made to overcome previous objections. The size of the buildings had been reduced and open space increased. The development would be a huge community benefit housing older people while satisfying the CVHT’s charitable objectives.

“How can the health authorities say one thing in 2019 and change their minds in 2020?”

 

Cllr Liz Townsend centred her opposition on the numerous “unidentifiable benefits” of a scheme, that had no support from health and social care experts, and had no named nursing home operator. As for providing 14 affordable homes; 1,600 homes had already been granted in Cranleigh – 480 of which were affordable, many within walking distance.

She rejected the applicant’s claims that there been a small number of vocal objectors saying, this is just not accurate.

It was quite simply the landscape for health care had changed. It’s tough for the charity, but it has not kept the community which had contributed £2m on board. It had continually refused to meet residents and the attempts by the parish council had also failed.

“CVHT has simply closed its ears to the voices of the public, and should be refused for all the reasons stated by our officers.”

Alfold’s Cllr Kevin Deanus – said the scheme breached eight of the council’s planning policies,  asking everyone to visualise the huge sizes of the buildings.

One almost 200ft (60m) long and the accommodation block – 122ft long and 66ft wide – in the middle of an Area of Strategic Visual Importance! 

The impact will be huge – this is not what Cranleigh is about – this is horrendous!

” I can’t see any benefits from this development whatsoever“, said Godalming’s Cllr Paul Follows, and criticised the charity’s tenuous efforts to provide residential development in the grounds of a private nursing home. He put great weight upon the objectors and parish council’s comments. “The list is endless.” He said the reasons for a virtual meeting called by Cranleigh Cllr Patricia Ellis would require further investigation.

Cllr Steve Cosser said there was a ‘very angry mood in Cranleigh.’ However, the ICP had not proved very helpful and should have provided a written statement. (Its statement is included in the officer’s report below!)

However, there was one champion for the scheme.- The lone voice of Cllr Ellis, who used her council prerogative to prevent an officers refusal under delegated powers, was fully in support.  Although much was centred around the old cottage hospital, and previous attempts to build a hospital. She believed having a private care home plus 16 community beds would be an asset.

But it was Cllr George Wilson that once again raised the spectre of the elephant in the room. Claiming the withdrawal of support, from the public, private and health authorities could result in a white elephant when SCC had left a former residential care home to rot.

With numerous care homes in Cranleigh and a different model of future care proposed, Cranleigh Cllr Ruth Reed said Cranleigh’s last central green lung should remain.

The application was refused by  11 votes with one in support and one abstention.

WA/2020/0965 – Erection of a building to provide a 64 Bed Care home including 16 Community Beds together with a building to provide 14 Health Workers accommodation units with access from Knowle Lane, associated parking and ancillary work (revision of WA/2018/1966 and as amplified by letters received 14/12/2020 and 15/12/2020). at Land South Of John Wiskar Drive On East Side Of Knowle Lane, Cranleigh

Officers’ Report

It is acknowledged the scheme would bring some public benefits, in the form of care home provision, housing provision with an affordable element for key workers and 16 care home beds which would be let at a lower rate for selected residents of the Cranleigh area. Page 27 Agenda Item 8.2 The scale of the public benefits proposed, however, would be lessened from the previously refused care home scheme, where there was an identified need for public beds and informal partnership with the Integrated Care Partnership (ICP). The public benefit would also be substantially reduced from that which would have been provided by the previously consented Village Hospital and Health Centre scheme, which would have provided essential infrastructure of significant benefit to a large number of people. It is not considered, overall, that the public benefits of the scheme would outweigh the substantial resultant harm to the ASVI and the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. On this basis, it is recommended that permission be refused. 

. Planning Policy Constraints ASVI (Area of Strategic Visual Importance) Long Distance Footpath (Downs Link) Countryside Beyond Green Belt (outside any defined settlement) Bridleway Within 20 metres of River Bank Flood Zones 2 and 3

Integrated Care Partnership

Continues to object to the proposal in response to the amended information with regards to how community Page 36 beds would be provided. – The ICP has withdrawn their support for the uptake of the community beds and they would not provide a significant community benefit which is such as to outweigh the harm to the ASVI. – The terms of the legal agreement as to how the beds would be allocated has not been shared with the PC. – No infrastructure contributions provided. – The terms of the community benefit could be varied and removed by the applicant. – There would be a negative impact on residents of John Wiskar Drive. – Flood risk, noise and disturbance and highway safety concern

Cranleigh Parish Council

Continues to object to the proposal in response to the amended information with regards to how community Page 36 beds would be provided. – The ICP has withdrawn their support for the uptake of the community beds and they would not provide a significant community benefit which is such as to outweigh the harm to the ASVI. – The terms of the legal agreement as to how the beds would be allocated has not been shared with the PC. – No infrastructure contributions provided. – The terms of the community benefit could be varied and removed by the applicant. – There would be a negative impact on residents of John Wiskar Drive. – Flood risk, noise and disturbance and highway safety concerns. As the owner of adjacent land and beneficiary of a restrictive covenant, concerns expressed in relation to impact on the ASVI, offsite cumulative flooding impact, cumulative transport impact and environmental pollution (e.g. noise, light and smell pollution).

Surrey County Council (SCC) has confirmed that it would no longer be able to commit to block booking beds due to the Discharge to Access scheme. SCC has confirmed that the beds would not be free at the point of access. The Parish Council can no longer support the proposal.  The accommodation block would not be linked to the care home only (ancillary) and on this basis cannot be supported.

 

Thames Water

  The inability of the existing water infrastructure to meet the needs of the development has been identified and a condition is therefore recommended to ensure this is addressed. – Drains passing through the site – these cannot be built over – I

 

The Difference in the previous proposals.

The primary differences between the current proposal and that application are; – The quantum of development has been reduced by 1439m2, including a reduction in the footprint of the proposal by 856m2. – The previous application proposed an 80- bed care home with a provision of 20 community beds and 26 health care worker rooms. The current application proposes a 64-bed care home with 16 community beds and 14 key worker accommodation units. – The key workers’ accommodation block is now proposed to be positioned in the northern part of the site rather than the southern part. – The parking is now proposed centrally, unlike the previous proposal where it was divided into that serving the care home and the accommodation block. – The health care worker accommodation previously proposed was not self-contained, with single bedrooms and communal cooking facilities. Page 47 It is now proposed that all accommodation units would be fully self-contained and with 4 two-bedroom units. This would represent a material change of use within the proposal from sui generis as previously to C3 (housing) as currently proposed.

Integrated Care Partnership

The ICP, which had made a minimum 5-year commitment to block-book beds within the previous scheme, but is no longer able to make this commitment. This is due to developments in how care is provided, such as a move to assessing people’s care needs in their own homes following discharge from hospital, rather than within ‘step down’ beds in care homes. As mentioned above, there are other potential considerations around a Local Authority allocating beds only to Cranleigh residents.

Retained Policy C5 of the Local Plan (2002) states that: “The Council will seek to ensure that the appearance of Areas of strategic Visual Importance, as shown on the proposals map, is maintained and enhanced. Development inconsistent with this objective will not be permitted.” Page 52 The proposed development is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Assessment. This concludes that “The proposal site is well contained by trees, settlement and topography and there will be minimal visual intrusion beyond the site itself with no effects to the views from the wider rural landscape which affect the character and setting of Cranleigh.”

it is not considered that the visual harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside of the scheme is substantially reduced by this reduction in scale. Both proposed buildings would continue to be extremely large and elongated in scale, at 60m in length on both axis for the care home and 37m by 20m for the healthcare worker accommodation block. Further, the built footprint would continue to be very spread across the site with little meaningful negative space remaining due to the necessary separation of the two large buildings and the cruciform design of the proposed care home. In the officers’ view, notwithstanding that the floor area of the proposed building on site would be reduced from that of the consented 3 storey hospital building, the current proposal would actually have a greater visual impact given the proposed spread of built form across the site. The siting of access points, in a central position to the site off Knowle Lane for vehicles and near to the entrance to John Wiskar Drive, is a continuation of the previous scheme in terms of visual impact. The car parking was previously separated into two areas for the different uses but in the current proposal is indicated to be sited centrally within the site in the form of one large car park. This would result in a very significant expanse of hard surface concentrated in one area, which would be visually detrimental. Page 53 The overall visual impression of the proposed built footprint and layout would be one of the significant urbanisation of what is a greenfield site outside of the developed area boundary.

 

It is acknowledged that the tree line does limit some views in some directions of the site but it does not provide total screening and the development would remain highly visually perceptible from Knowle Lane, including from the access road. Whilst the playing field use of the site has now ceased and been re-accommodated, the site continues to adjoin and visually read as part of the adjacent open parkland which is both an appropriately open countryside use and containment of the landscape sprawl of the settlement. The development of the site would substantially impinge upon this currently tranquil space. Nighttime illumination of the site would represent a substantial change from the current nighttime darkness which would be perceptible from some distance. The site is within a designated Area of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI). The applicants indicate that they disagree that the area should be identified as such and indicate that they consider the designation out of date. However, this is a Local Plan designation and is extant and not outdated. The buildings would undoubtedly lead to harm to the open nature of the site and lead to harm to the ASVI. The urbanising impacts of 4,741m2 of development up to 12m in height would be highly perceptible and represent a substantial change from the current greenfield status. This would be exacerbated but the sheer scale of the two buildings proposed. It would be highly perceptible for users of the Downs Link, which is the major key public footpath within the borough. Whilst the re-siting of the accommodation block to the north may reduce clear views from the playing field, it would make it more visually prominent from Knowle Lane and the Downs Link, which are both key public views. On this basis, it is considered that the development would continue to lead to landscape harm

You can listen to the meeting here.

 

No room for Zoom. A Waverley spat but not as bad as Handforth.

Featured

A couple of councillors went head to head at a recent meeting of ‘Your Waverley’s Standards Board.

Former Council Leader – Robert Knowless – was firing on all four cylinders when he went into battle to express his misgivings about the way councillors and officers behaved on virtual Zoom meetings. The Government has ruled that virtual meetings will end on May 7, when it’s back to business in the Council Chamber. An edict that has already upset some councils.

It wasn’t quite up to the standard of the spat experienced by the Handforth Parish Council which recently earned national and international notoriety, but nonetheless – it had ‘Your Waverley’s’ Zoom listeners pricking up their ears.

You can hear Cllr Robert `Knowless’ – the member for Haslemere here:

 

And here’s the response from Waverley’s Deputy Leader – Paul Follows who appealed for a “reality check” on behalf of his colleagues and officers of the council.” Officers who he claimed – deserved an apology.

And here’s Cllr ‘Holier than thou Knowless’ at that very same meeting giving the longest yawn in Waverley’s history. – This shows he has the utmost respect and always upholds the council’s standards for the office that he holds.

We agree with you, Bobby.-  Councillors shouldn’t exhibit sloppy behaviour. They should uphold the same strict standards on Zoom that are expected of them in the council chamber!

 

The latest leak in Cranleigh?

Featured

There’s no better way to embarrass a water authority than to post pictures on social media revealing its inadequacies.

Cranleigh Cllr Liz Townsend 

Cranleigh councillor Liz Townsend – speaking up for Cranleigh… again… and again.

For many months Thames Water has been made aware of a serious leak affecting the Downslink pedestrian footpath which runs through Cranleigh. The public right of way regularly used is more of a paddling exercise than a walking exercise, and it has nothing to do with rain and everything to do with lack of pipe maintenance.

So get off your butts TW – and fix it! Or don’t even think about bringing in a hosepipe ban when the sun starts to shine, because the people of Cranleigh will not take you seriously.

Leaking water pipes are nothing new to the residents of Cranleigh. Once-upon-a-time the leading flood authority and all the statutory agencies met with villagers including the Cranleigh Society at regular flood forums called by former MP Anne Milton. Now, with MP Angela Richardson in the chair – numerous forums have been postponed or cancelled. So get your keyboard out Angie, and start writing – now?

And perhaps we should also mention that as your Government has decreed that it will be illegal for local authorities to hold Zoom meetings from the 7th of May, may we respectfully suggest that you and your colleagues get back to realtime meetings in Parliament?

Perhaps like local authorities, you could also continue to work through the summer recess?  Then you could re-start the regular flood forums on your patch – and hold bodies like Thames Water to account?

 

A new way of targeting tumours at The Royal Surrey.

Featured

Royal Surrey’s New High-tech Machine Uses AI To Target Cancer Tumours

The Ethos machine radiotherapy team

Royal Surrey has launched online adaptive radiotherapy treatment, a revolutionary technique that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to target tumours with extreme precision and provides a personalised plan for cancer patients on each day of their treatment.

The Trust has invested about £2 million in setting up adaptive radiotherapy treatment using the Varian Ethos© machine. This is only the second of its type in use in the UK and fully rolled out will help 175 cancer patients a year.

The machine’s AI software helps the radiotherapy team adapt and update each patient’s treatment plan in real-time, according to a patient’s anatomy on the day.

This online adaptive approach to radiotherapy has the potential to improve treatment accuracy and consequently reduce the dose delivered to surrounding organs, thereby decreasing radiation side-effects.

A patient using the new  radiotherapy machine

Patient experience has been at the centre of the design of the treatment room, using SkyInside© ceiling panels and calming lighting to help soothe and distract patients during treatment. They have a choice of overhead projections to watch, including beautiful underwater scenes, rain forest canopies, cherry blossom trees and starry night skies.

Marianne Dabbs, associate director of operations for oncology, said: “The Ethos AI software lets us fine-tune and tailor patients’ treatments on the day to take into account any changes affecting their body, such as weight gain, or bladder or bowel emptiness compared with when they had their planning scan.

“It has many benefits, including anticipated improved accuracy. The environment is a fabulous space to improve the experiences of both the patients and staff. There is also the potential for it to reduce the need for some invasive procedures where ‘markers’ are inserted to aid tumour location during radiotherapy.”

Peter Gable, 66, who was diagnosed with bladder cancer in April last year, is the first patient to receive the new online adaptive treatment. He said: “It’s brilliant to have the chance to try out this new treatment with the latest technology.

“It looks a lot less clinical and daunting when I go into the treatment room and I can see how it’s going to make things simpler and easier for me.

“I really liked seeing the different scenes on the overhead screen in the scanner and being able to choose what music I could listen to as well.”

Louise Stead, chief executive of Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, said: “A great deal of work has gone into researching and investing in the best available options to treat our cancer patients and we’re excited to have this ground-breaking technology to help us achieve the very best health outcomes for them.

“We are extremely proud to be at the forefront of radiotherapy treatment and taking advantage of the latest AI software technology. There are only 10 countries offering this treatment and only one other Trust in the UK.

“At a time when the NHS is under extreme pressure from the Covid pandemic, it is a lovely boost for our patients and staff to launch this new pioneering treatment.”

Town leaders have objected to a Godalming assisted living scheme.

Featured

The former Moles Country Store in Brighton Road – will not become a large four-storey apartment block to join the Birchgrove stable of up-market rental homes, if the town council has anything to do with it.?

The bulk, scale and massing of the huge block of bricks and mortar is too much of an overdevelopment of the former retail site in the opinion of Godalming’s Town councillors. The members of its planning group claimed it would look ‘out of place.’

Does the artist’s impression included in the plans look like a two and three-storey block to you? Have we logged onto the right plans? Because ‘Your Waverley’s newly up-dated Planning Portal has gone into a go-slow – that has brought it almost to a STOP. Not much of an incentive for comments – is it?

Coming soon to a controversial site in Godalming?

There were also concerns about the cost of the new units – believed to be in the region of £5,000 per week based on similar Birchgrove properties, including those already built and occupied in Woking. Councillors also said the huge impact of the buildings would impact on all the other buildings in the area and the ‘built heritage’ of Godalming.

Councillors claimed the building is likely to be considered oppressive by people in the area that surrounds the proposed 49 flats in the two and three-storey buildings, two-flats in another two-storey building and a two-room extra care facility in the former Scats office building. A unit which is described as a Grade 11 listed former cow house. The company also proposes to include communal gardens and parking, a restaurant, lounge bar and guest bedrooms.

Neighbours and others have already registered their objection to the proposed development, describing it as ‘downright ugly and people living on South Hill are concerned that they would be overlooked. However, the company argue it will meet a pressing need for specialist accommodation for older people in the Godalming area and will free up other properties. It will also generate jobs in a development close to the town.

Says one objector.

‘Planning of high rise building will impact views on housing in surrounding areas. This site could be used to bring trade into the town which is already struggling. A lot of housing has been built in the area already without any improvement to infrastructure. Not in keeping with designs in the area. Will impede on traffic to the bottom of Brighten Road.’

 

Godalming’s Neighbourhood Plan indicates it would ‘strongly encourage more older people’s developments in the Farncombe and Godalming area.

 

Will ‘Your Waverley’ roll over and allow yet another deferral of a controversial Cranleigh application?

Featured

Cranleigh Village Health Trust says it is disappointed that Waverley Borough Council is recommending its plans be REFUSED when councillors meet to determine its planning application next week.

‘We’re in yet another sticky situation.

NOW THERE’S A SURPRISE!

The so-called – Cranleigh Charity doesn’t like the recommendation to REFUSE its latest application for a 64 Private Care Home with 16 community beds and a residential block, so it wants yet another deferral. This despite the fact that Cllr Patricia Ellis has called for it to be heard by the eastern committee next Wednesday!

What part of the words ‘ WE OBJECT’  doesn’t Waverley Borough Councillor Patricia Ellis understand?

Waverley

Oh, dear! The load gets heavier every day. As letters and petitions opposing the CVHT scheme pour in every day. 

So far – the delays – repeat correspondence informing the public of deferrals, withdrawals, and revisions. Together with pamphlets giving Zoom and public speaking arrangements has cost us, council taxpayers dearly.  Shedloads of cash running into many thousands of pounds for a cash-strapped local authority coping with a pandemic!

However the charity – which garnered several millions of pounds from public donors for a HOSPITAL AND A DAY HOSPITAL – says it has good reasons for seeking yet another deferral for yet another planning application on its 20-year hike. 

WHY? SIMPLES – because it doesn’t like the possible outcome. It is also blaming? Yes, you guessed – Waverley’s planning department and Surrey County Council. Why not the Waverley Web we wonder?

The Cranleigh Community Board crashed overnight along with its 9,000 subscribers because it refused to let the public have their say on this toxic project.  CVHT was Verboten!

Who else could the cloak of blame fall upon? Surrey Heartlands Trust no doubt? Or perhaps the key stakeholder in the project – Cranleigh Parish Council – speaking on behalf of the villagers they represent, and who it was claimed, had refused to speak to them!  Cranleigh charity’s request for ‘private meeting’ UNANIMOUSLY REFUSED.

CVHT says:

Our planning consultant has today requested that the council defer the hearing of our application at committee, for two main reasons.

Reason No 1

Firstly, the report comments about the lack of clarity around how the proposed funding of community benefit would work in practice or be secured via a legal agreement.

We feel this statement is unfair and prejudicial to the application, as we have been awaiting comments from Waverley Borough Council about the draft legal agreement, known as a Section 106 agreement.

When our earlier application was refused in November 2019, the report at the time explained that “The case for development at this large scale is considered to be substantiated and it is reasonable to concur that the community beds can be secured via a legal agreement”.

There now appears to have been a significant change in this view, but we have not received any explanation for the change.

As we have not been given the opportunity to engage with Waverley Borough Council about the wording of a legal agreement, to demonstrate how this would work, we are concerned that councillors will have an unreasonable doubt in their minds on this matter.

Reason No 2 –

The second reason for requesting a deferral is to give us more time to consider the newly submitted comments from Surrey County Council.

“These comments suggest that Surrey County Council has ‘sufficient capacity for residential care beds through its existing block contract arrangements with care home operators in Surrey.”

We feel this statement contradicts the earlier committee report which states: “…there is a shortage of affordable residential and nursing care home beds that are in line with Surrey County Council’s (SCC) guide price.”

While we accept that there have been some changes in the adult social care sector since this report was published in mid-2019, we have been given no evidence that the massive shortfall mentioned previously has been satisfied, and our proposals would go towards meeting the capacity shortfall, in line with the Surrey County Council guide price.

We need some time to explore this issue by engaging with the Integrated Care Partnership and Surrey County Council, to establish for councillors the current position.

We are also disappointed that our affordable health care accommodation for key workers is given so little positive consideration when it has been improved in terms of the size and type in line with past local comments. Our plans will deliver a form of affordable housing tenure which is the same as that which forms the majority of the affordable housing delivered in Waverley in the last 5 years.

This application for health worker accommodation was first made a long time before the Covid crisis and a direct response to the requests of various local public health bodies.

Our planning application remains the best possible way to fulfil our charitable objectives; securing community benefit through the provision of affordable community beds, along with the significant benefit of genuinely affordable housing provision for our valuable NHS and care sector key workers.

CVHT

Andy Webb the man who heads the Campaign Group that was formed to oppose the scheme and return the land to the village said this morning.

Dear Waverley Web,
“So now the CVHT want to deter their planning application because WBC recommended refusal. 
How long can they drag it out for this time?”
So when will this outfit get the message?
The public who paid for it – don’t want it? Surrey County Council doesn’t want it! Surrey Heartlands Trust doesn’t want it and neither does Cranleigh Parish Council.
So we ask? Cranleigh Village Health Trust? – Apart from a handful of new boys and girls on the block now called Directors who appear to have a big fat egotistic goose laying a huge golden egg in their laps to pay for this local farce? Who actually does want it? 
So come on Waverley Planners – isn’t it time to tell this outfit its time is up?

What part of the words ‘WE OBJECT’  doesn’t Waverley Borough Councillor Patricia Ellis understand?

Featured

Make a date with Pattie on Waverley’s YouTube channel – 6 p.m. on Wednesday 24 February?

Erection of a 64 Bed Care Home, 16 community beds and 14 flats off Knowle Lane Cranleigh.

Cllr Pat Ellis, the last time something or someone disagreed with her.

Surely, her perverse and myopic view cannot be due to the fact that she and her late husband, both former parish councillors who (a) agreed to parish land being swapped for £1 – without seeking a mandate from the public, could it? BIG MISTAKE!

or (b) failing to take The District Valuer’s advice on his valuation of £250,000 for the land? Even BIGGER bloody MISTAKE!

Or maybe it was (c) that while the deceased former Chairman, Brian Ellis (Aka – “they will build homes at Dunsfold over my dead body.” ) agreed to change the wording of the Legal Covenant to make it more open to abuse? COLOSSAL MISTAKE!

Or perhaps it was (d) because the parish council flatly refused to take the land back after the Cranleigh Village HOSPITAL Trust failed to build a HOSPITAL on the land after their five years were up?  EXTRAORDINARY, SHOCKING – ALMIGHTY MISTAKE!

Or perhaps, having supported past plans – in all their guises – and having called it in, despite advice to the contrary on previous occasions – Cllr Patricia Ellis truly believes that what Cranleigh needs is a private nursing home and residential development in the centre of the village? Possibly as a monument to a shed load of mistakes made by herself and her late, unlamented husband and their cronies on the parish council at the time. 

Added to which it would be a slap in the face not only for Cranleigh residents, the MAJORITY of whom are bitterly opposed to these proposals but also to those existing parish councillors – who were not a party to Pattie & Brian’s disastrous decisions – and are now trying their damndest to rectify the mistakes of their predecessors.

Waverley

Seriously, Pattie, you need to stop defending the indefensible and if you can’t help yourself, then just butt out! This is the second occasion you have called in this application after officers had refused it under their delegated powers. So you have sent another shedload of our cash-strapped local authority’s money down the pan!

Or, are you prepared, as is the view of many of your constituents, to sacrifice Cranleigh on the alter of a couple of narcissistic men’s egos?

Here’s a link to the parish council’s most recent letter OBJECTING. May we respectfully suggest to Cllr Ellis, that it might be a good idea to read it?

Better to keep your mouth closed and thought to be a fool than open it and remove all doubt?

http://planning360.waverley.gov.uk/civica/Resource/Civica/Handler.ashx/Doc/pagestream?cd=inline&pdf=true&docno=8135313

P.S  Just down the road, is the boarded-up Surrey County Council’s Longfields Residential Nursing Home at Killicks in Cranleigh. A former county council dementia and nursing home for 56 residents lies, rotting away – because it and Surrey Heartlands Trust want to provide a different model of care in future by keeping people, wherever they can, in their own homes. A site now included in ‘Your Waverley’s land availability Assessment for 20 dwellings.

Taken from the top of the Waverley Borough Council Planning Portal. There there are now 458 letters of OBJECTION and a petition and 253 in SUPPORT – many of which are for a HOSPITAL and from as far afield as Jersey!

Plus another 64 letters of objection and one of Support since this snapshot was taken!
Parish or Town Council Comments – 25.01 Cranleigh PC Comments pg3
5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response
    5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Pat Shepherd (Object)
    5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Shelly Taylor (Object)
    5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Andrew Stephens (Object)
    5 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Terence Smith (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Clive Walker (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Jc Napier (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Reg Marchant (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Shane Marriott (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Christine Makubale (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Charlie Elliott (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Michael Brown (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Julian Croft (Object)
    4 February 2021
  • Committee Call-in Correspondence – Councillor Ellis reasons for referral August 2021
    3 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Hilary Wilson (Object)
    3 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Jane Heathcott (Object)
    3 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Linda Halls (Object)
    3 February 2021
  • Neighbour Response – Graham Matthews (Object

Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust – That changed its name to Cranleigh Village HEALTH Trust.

And the list goes on, and on.  One local warrior has even carried out an exercise to identify where the SUPPORT comes from. Which include numerous family members of Trustees, duplicate letters from Trustees, and many who still honestly believe the Cranleigh Village Health Trust is going to build them a HOSPITAL!

 

Cllr Ellis’s letter: Dear Kate.

Thank you for your email and whilst I have not predetermined the matter I do believe that should the officers be minded to refuse this application it should be openly considered and determined by committee.

I believe that many of the objections raised with regard to the previous application have been addressed and that the provision of this facility, which is conveniently situated in the centre of the village, will help to alleviate increasing demands on health care facilities and that the community beds will greatly enhance the existing services available to all residents of Cranleigh and the surrounding area.

The provision of on-site accommodation with private en suite bathroom facilities and individual kitchens will be most helpful to those employed within the health care services who currently find it almost impossible to find affordable housing in the area.

Many thanks and regards. Patricia Ellis
Councillor, Cranleigh West.

Here’s the Officers’ recommendation for the virtual Zoom meeting onWednesday  24 February at 6 p.m.https://modgov.waverley.gov.uk/documents/g3742/Public%20reports%20pack%2024th-Feb-2021%2018.00%20EASTERN%20Planning%20202021.pdf?T=10

‘Your Waverley’ continues to support community organisations – including one in Guildford.

Featured

The council has recognised that during the pandemic Waverley’s local community organisations have been going through a torrid time.

 

 Cllr Michaela Martin told  Waverley’s Executive that the COVID-19 pandemic had proved a challenging time for everyone. She recommended that the current 3 year Service Level Agreements (SLA’s) for twelve community organisations should remain the same, but only for one year. This would give all the organisations some certainty for budgeting, staffing and services, until such time as they are able to look again at their business plans and strategies to determine how they would deliver services in the future.

Deputy leader Cllr Paul Follows was pleased to see that certain grants had been reinstated. Two had now been more fairly proportioned – in particular to The Hazelway, in Haslemere and The Clockhouse in Milford.

“It is all about fairness, and recognising the work that is being done by these two organisations.” he said.

Haslewey, Haslemere – An Exemplar Model.

The Haslemere centre had been funded for 2 ½ years towards services for older, lonely and isolated people only. Haslewey had continued to develop its services and provide an exemplar model of delivery. It had worked positively with the Council and is always willing to adapt and try new things. It was felt that this approach should be recognised and increased funding would bring Haslewey up to similar levels of the other day/community centres. The funding would contribute towards the development of services as well as contributing towards overheads.

 Brightwells Gostrey, Farnham – It was proposed that the ‘higher needs grant’ be withdrawn. As staff delivering the higher needs service had been made redundant and the service had ceased operating.

However, the centre continued to deliver the Community Meals Service but had ceased providing all other day centre services. Its board was taking this opportunity to review and refresh all services and the future shape of the organisation. The proposed funding would continue to contribute towards running costs, anticipating that new services/activities will have been shaped by April (restrictions permitting), and possibly elements of the Community Meals Service delivery for 2021/22 only.

The former Tory administration spent £3.2 million on the Gostrey Centre extension to the Memorial Hall – a project which originally was to have been built by Crest at the Brightwells development in East Street at their expense!

How did Waverley Conservatives manage to shrink the Brightwells dividend so much?

Cllr Follows said whilst it was recognised there was a need to look at the ways future grants were paid,  to change them during the present pandemic when organisations were working under such difficult circumstances, would be a deeply troubling thing to do.

  Cllr Martin said the funding would be paid according to the individual SLA agreements, either for the full year, quarterly or half-yearly. This would support the individual organisations’ budget forecasts and cash-flow.

Officers would then work with organisations so that if they were unable to deliver against their SLA, they could adapt their services in such a way as to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, particularly in relation to mental health, loneliness and social isolation as part of their local community response.

Looking to the future.

In 2021 – post-COVID, the relevant Portfolio Holders would work with Officers and the Community Wellbeing Overview & Scrutiny Committee to develop appropriate proposals for longer-term funding based on community needs. 

The Head of Housing and Communities wrote to all 12 organisations in November 2020 advising them that the Council is going through a period of change and facing significant financial challenges, highlighting that the Council needed to find an additional £8 million over the next 4 years. The letter explained that this will have an impact on any commissioning process and funding decisions in the future. The SLA budget is a discretionary fund and, along with its other budgets, the Council will need to review its future financial support to community organisations.

This Annex provides details on all the grants provided by Waverley Borough Council in Waverley and in Guildford.

Annexe 1 – SLA proposals 2021-22

     The Executive RESOLVED to:

  1. i)approve the renewal of the current SLAs with the 12 partner organisations for one year only, 2021/22 at the proposed levels of funding as shown in Annexe 1 and as part of the budget setting process.
  2. ii)approve the withdrawal of funding to Brightwells Gostrey for the higher needs service and divert these funds to Haslewey to support services for older people and contribute towards running cost as shown in Annexe 1.

       Agree on the establishment of an Executive Working Group to review the councils funding mechanism to voluntary sector organisation from 1 April 2022.

Organisations WBC  funds through Service Level Agreements

 

Funding levels

Three-year SLAs, 1 April 2018 – 31 March 2021

Organisation Funding per year
Citizens Advice Waverley £210,000
Waverley Hoppa Community Transport £108,000
Farnham Maltings Outreach £33,000
Haslewey Community Centre £26,000
The Clockhouse £53,000
Farncombe Day Centre £66,000
Cranleigh Arts Centre £22,000
Brightwells Gostrey Centre £55,000
Rowleys Centre for the Community £55,000
Voluntary Action South West Surrey £8,000
Farnham Assist £8,000
Age UK Surrey £26,105

Is time for the people of Waverley to come to the aid of Farnham?

Featured

If a Government Inspector allows Bewley Homes to develop land in Badshot Lea it will send an Exocet missile through Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan and could herald open season for other developers to build in Farnham.

Waverley

Is another Neighbourhood Plan about to hit Waverley’s wheelie bin?

        Oh! Carole

The very integrity of the Neighbourhood Plan that  Waverley Borough Councillor Carole Cockburn slaved over for years is now at stake with this single application. Is it any wonder she looks so glum?

Last week it was Haslemere calling for support from everyone: The temperature may be dropping in ‘ Your Waverley’ but its rising in Haslemere.
So WHY DOES Farnham needs your help. National Housebuilder Bewley Homes has appealed the refusal of their application for building 140 houses at Land at Lower Weybourne Lane, Badshot Lea. The site was excluded from both the 2017 Farnham Neighbourhood Plan and the revised 2020 copy which received the full backing of residents with an extraordinary 95.5% support.


The Farnham Society strongly objected to the application when it was considered and subsequently refused by Waverley `Planners. It will submit similar comments to the Planning Inspector for his consideration at the Public Inquiry.

It is now asking everyone to write to the Inspector and record that the site is not included within the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2020 and the appeal should be dismissed.
Waverley Planners refused the scheme because:
  • It outside the settlement
  • In the countryside
  • On Flood Zone 2
  • On land that is potentially contaminated
  • The Strategic Gap between Farnham and Aldershot.
  • On land that planning consent has been refused in: Twice in the 1950s;1986; 2013; and 2020. 
After all – it isn’t just Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan that is at stake here, is it? A decision here could impact on all those other local plans – Haslemere; Godalming; Cranleigh’s and others that are either completed or well on their way.



Application Reference: WA/2019/1905

Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/R3650/W/20/3262641

Deadline for commenting: Thursday 25 February 2021

Address for hardcopy letters: Alison Dyson, The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN

Historically the Inspectorate has required three copies of any written representation.

Representations can be online via https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ 

Enter the Planning Inspectorate number 3262641 in the ‘Search for a Case’ box and then click on the ‘Make representation’ box which moves you towards an opportunity to complete a request for your details.

If you can find time to write to the Inspector and simply say that the proposals are contrary to the ‘made’ Farnham Neighbourhood Plan the Society says it would be very grateful.