Is this a bad joke for a Waverley’s eastern village?

Surrey County Council launched an on-demand minibus scheme with much fanfare: any day but Sunday – when most buses don’t run. 

But not in Alfold!

Because developer Thakeham Homes wanted to dump the legal (106 agreement ), it signed with Surrey and Waverley Councils to give villagers a demand-led service when it received consent to build 99 homes there.

So, a developer can promise an Inspector and sign a legal agreement during an appeal for £400,000 towards a “super uber,” as the Inspector described it, or a new hospital or school, a donkey sanctuary and then shred it!

Has Waverley Council conspired with developers to throw Alfold to the wolves?

Tom Horwood shredding

Waverley & Guildford CEO Tom Horwood shreds Waverley’s legal agreement with Thakeham Homes and Surrey County Council to provide Alfold with a demand-led bus service. 

Wow! Good news or what for Trinity College Cambridge? Is that the sound of the zillion-pound legal agreement it signed getting ready for take-off from Dunsfold airfield’s runway and heading for planet Zonk?!?

Despite SCC signing a legal agreement with devious developer Thakeham Homes and Waverley, following appeal consent for 99 homes in Loxwood Road, Alfold, with the caveat that the developer provides a £400,000 contribution towards this service, the developer now wants it shredded.

Why? Because having trousered consent, it is now doing a deal to flog it all off to a housing association called Abri Homes for, yep, you guessed, homes for rent and shared ownership to reduce ‘Your Waverley’s housing list.

Surrey County Council said the new service will improve access to travel in areas with fewer traditional bus services. 

But not in Alfold!!!

Since last Monday, the service has expanded into five Surrey towns as part of a sustainable travel push.

Surrey Connect uses accessible minibuses, which can be booked anytime, rather than operating on a traditional timetable.

Buses will run in Tandridge, Cranleigh, Farnham, West Guildford and Longcross.   

But not in Alfold

Surrey County Council (SCC) said it was funding the scheme following the success of a service launched in Mole Valley in 2022.

The authority said the scheme would “improve access to sustainable transport in areas of the county where there are fewer bus services.”

But not in Alfold!

Journeys can be booked online with 30 minutes’ notice or up to seven days ahead. Fares are charged based on how many miles are travelled, starting from £2 for adults.

WW noticed the Farnham area map that extends towards Elstead, but no settlement East of the river Wey is mentioned because it’s too far out to make the timetable viable.

5 thoughts on “Is this a bad joke for a Waverley’s eastern village?”

  1. As Surrey rolls out this completely flawed scheme. Hampshire is busy scrapping theirs.
    A bus runs to a timetable from designated stops and zones. Everyone knows a bus stop and a what a timetable is. A timetable allows for the most sensible use of resources. Driver and vehicle.
    Throw that all in the bin and have an on demand service from your door like Hoppa. Looks fantastic.
    Except for the cost It’s completely unaffordable to operate as Hampshire and other areas have found.
    Now For once I really do know because I was involved insetting up the very first community bus service and the necessary changes in legislation.
    You can make a small bus service with a set timetable work if you have tested volunteer drivers. But not after for all.
    It looks great
    There is not the money.
    Passengers want buses they can rely upon. This is a sure fired way of soaking up all the subsidy and killing of rural services forever.

  2. It is difficult to understand why the agreement can be shredded.

    “What are planning obligations?
    Planning obligations are legal obligations entered into to mitigate the impacts of a development proposal.

    This can be via a planning agreement entered into under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 by a person with an interest in the land and the local planning authority; or via a unilateral undertaking entered into by a person with an interest in the land without the local planning authority.

    Planning obligations run with the land, are legally binding and enforceable. A unilateral undertaking cannot bind the local planning authority because they are not party to it.”

    S106 agreements are required when it is considered that a development’s significant impacts on the local area cannot be moderated by conditions.

    1. Perhaps we will hear from Cllr Follows or maybe CEO Tom Horwood the man who takes his instructions from ‘Take Us To Our Leader?’ But we suggest you don’t hold your breath.

  3. Hi WW
    I signed up for this to see what it offered and It did seem to include Alfold – But as I cannot paste into this site . I will email.
    You know I do not beleive in this Rubbish Service due to the fact that it already well documented it doesn’t work well in RURAL areas – So is this just a TICK IN THE BOX exercise??

Leave a Reply

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