‘Your Waverley’ is between a rock and the National Planning Policy Framework.


The NPPF – is Government Planning Policy. The blueprint by which planning applications are judged by local authorities across the country.

Here’s what Paul Follows – the Leader of Waverley Borough Council had to say about the NPPF, during a session of the eastern planning committee recently.

We apologise for being unable to give you a full picture of the speaker. But the dummies that control the webcast seem to have got their knickers in a knot… again!  One day, let us hope it is soon, we can actually hear and see the decisions and statements made by our elected representatives?

Is Planning Political?

Waverley planners have refused a proposed Rudwick development due to massive local opposition?

12 thoughts on “‘Your Waverley’ is between a rock and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

    1. We will add a link, although we posted his comments because the same could apply to numerous applications with which the planners are faced. They are – quite simply – between a rock and a hard place.

  1. Regardless of which planning application Councillor Paul Fellows was referring to in the clip (& I am reasonably certain it’s easy enough to locate) I have to agree with Councillor Paul Fellows Planning Decisions by the Planning inspector at the appeals stage is POLITICAL. I have seen a very high number of applications over the years whereby an application that has been refused initially locally then has gone to appeal and been refused again be represented by the same developer 18 months to two years later get refused locally for the same reasons as previously only to be granted at appeal 2nd time around. This can only be because planning appeals are carried out by a GOVERNMENT appointed inspector who apart from the fact is not local and will generally only look at paperwork (public enquiries are not that frequent and it’s only then the Government appointed inspector comes to the area) I have seen it stated in writing elsewhere that Developers are the main financial supporters of the Conservative Party if this is the case then it stands to reason that a CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT Appointed Planning Inspector will (unless there are very strong legal reasons not to) overturn a local decisions at appeal. I have seen evidence of this where I used to live and strongly suspect that when I have lived here a few years I will see the same evidence (unless there is a major change of Government)

    1. What nonsense, planning inspectors are totally independent and apply the planning law as exists in the country (something with Councils fail to do as they are political decisions). If there are material changes in circumstances they it is totally open for an Inspector to approve a scheme

      1. We respectfully suggest that planningwaverley listens to the public inquiry on Thakeham Homes successful appeal to build 99 homes on land in Loxwood Road, Alfold. Then judge whether Inspectors are totally independent and apply planning law. We rest our case, because the picture painted of Alfold bore no resemblance to the actual village.

      2. @waverleyweb I did and if there was any legal fault, the High Court would have agreed, but the High Court threw it out before any real consideration, so unless you now also think that judges are also not independent?

  2. Let’s be clear though, until earlier this year Waverley claimed it had a 5YHLS when it clearly didn’t. This was daft and the decision to do so cost the taxpayer considerably at the various lost appeals. Without a 5YHLS and without a made local plan the borough is at risk of developments it does not want. Had LPP2 not been delayed by 9 months then it is likely the borough would now have a made local plan. The decision to delay LPP2 was Follows’ alone. That decision was also political as he wanted to do his mates in Haslemere a favour. The rest of the borough has suffered as a result. He should own up to that.

    1. Fact check, was it not the Conservative administration that pulled LPP2 before the 2019 Elections?

      1. Fact Check has never had a good grasp of facts. Yes the LP2 was inexplicably pulled just before the 2019 elections – and everyone assumed it was a pre-election damage limitation exercise by Julia Potts. That worked out well then.

        Will we see history repeat itself tonight?

      2. The Tories did pull it.

        Then it went forward for consultation under the current administration in December 2020. It was then put to another consultation in the Autumn of 2021 as amendments were made to remove Red Court, which now has planning in any case. So the 9 month delay in order to remove Red Court was a total waste of time and put the whole borough at risk. The plan would likely be made now had it not gone for a second unnecessary consultation.

        Perfectly good grasp of facts here.

        Of course it’s a total coincidence that two of the leader’s closest political allies live next door to Red Court.

      3. You are absolutely right Mr Wright-Smith. The Tories pulled LP2 because it feared losing out in the last borough council election. Haslemere has been a thorn in Waverley’s side for a very long time. It would appear that Haslemere is perfectly happy to allow 40% of the council’s housing allocation to be dumped in the eastern villages.

  3. The reasons why draft LPP2 were pulled are set out in a report which was published in November 2020 as part of the pre-submission consultation on a later draft, and they were given as follows ….
    “4.47 Main changes to the Plan and ongoing consultation since the Preferred Options Consultation
    As mentioned previously, an earlier draft Pre-Submission Plan was considered by the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee in October 2018. However, a number of streams of additional work were identified as being needed before the Plan could be finalised for Pre-Submission consultation. These included:
     Seeking further evidence from utility companies and infrastructure providers in relation to water supply and health provision linked to the planned growth, particularly in Haslemere;
     Addressing issues around some of the sites proposed for allocation in Haslemere and the contribution that windfall housing sites could make to the amount of housing required in LPP1;
     Further evaluation of sites proposed in Witley/Milford, including the appropriateness of allocating sites that lie outside the areas indicated by an asterisk in LPP1 as having potential for removal from the Green Belt.”

Leave a Reply

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