High Court Judge says “No” to Alfold Judicial Review

Oh, dear! Ten out of Ten for trying Waverley – but you have just dumped £7,756 into a developer’s bottomless pockets and dipped into our empty purse.

Judge in High Court REFuse

The Honourable Mr Justice Lane has just kicked out ‘Your Waverley’s application to apply for a Judicial Review of the Government’s decision to allow Thakeham Homes/ Merchant Seaman’s War Memorial Society to build 99 homes on land in Loxwood Road, Alfold.

Is that the sound of chortling we can hear from the Tories? However, Waverley has scored a goal with the villagers of Alfold – even though it cost it £12,000 in an attempt to stop the rot and rape of Alfold’s countryside.

One villager told the Waverley Web – they expected nothing less of a planning and judicial system determined to concrete over the country’s green fields. But gave ‘Your Waverley’ ten out of ten for trying.

“What can you expect,- she said – Alfold Parish Council did everything in its power to stop development at Dunsfold Park – the borough’s largest brownfield site. It even helped Protect Our Waverley, an organisation that was nothing of the sort. If POW  wanted to protect Waverley – then why didn’t it rock up at any of the Alfold public Inquiries or inquiries elsewhere in the borough? It was a one-trick pony that objected to all things Dunsfold Park, causing a delay and putting Alfold and other towns and villages in the fine mess they are now in.”

Thanks to the past Tory administration,  MP’s , Jeremy Hunt, Anne Milton and other objectors, Waverley now has a 4.1 rather than a 5-year housing land supply and houses all of a similar design littering our countryside”

Back to the drawing board for Alfold development described by Bramley councillor as “crap.!”

Here’s the entire Court decision:






2 thoughts on “High Court Judge says “No” to Alfold Judicial Review”

  1. The judicial review was an exercise in virtue signalling at the expense of the taxpayer.

    1. Yep. I think you are right. The Planning Officer’s position and performance in defending it was embarrassing. There were no valid grounds for review.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.