What chance housing at Dunsfold now?


Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 13.11.47.png

The vast majority of recent ministerial decisions on using appeals have been in TORY seats and an appreciable proportion are being REFUSED against inspector’s advice, research shows. In other words decision being made are not PLANNING DECISIONS BUT POLITICAL DECISIONS!

According to research carried out by law firm Irwin Mitchell, 64 of the 69 decisions called-in applications or recovered appeals involving housing proposals issued in communities secretary Sajid Javid’s name since he took office last June involved sites in Conservative constituencies. “That’s a pretty amazing statistic, given the Tories have only 56 per cent of English MPs,” said Irwin Mitchell planning partner Carl Dyer.

The research, published recently, also highlights 14 cases involving some 2,500 homes in which Javid refused permission against inspectors’ recommendations. All but one were in Tory-held constituencies. The exception was Speaker John Bercow’s Buckingham constituency, where plans for 130 homes were refused in July following a call-in inquiry. “If the system is leading to the secretary of state looking more closely at his supporters’ seats, that issue will continue to influence his successors until it is addressed,” said Dyer.

Closer analysis of the figures shows that those 2,500 homes accounted for around 15 per cent of the total units proposed in schemes decided by Javid. During his tenure, he has endorsed inspectors’ recommendations to refuse 25 schemes collectively comprising around 6,000 homes but approved 28 schemes providing more than 8,000 units. In only two cases, including a 750-home development in Lichfield approved this February, has he gone against an inspector’s recommendation to refuse permission.

Dyer voiced frustration at growing ministerial intervention on housing schemes since the 2015 election. He suggested that the recovery threshold for ministerial intervention, currently set at 150 units outside neighbourhood plan areas, should be raised to something like 1,000 homes: “Below that, the government should leave well alone,” he said.

Screen Shot 2017-10-21 at 13.16.06.png

Conflict with emerging or adopted neighbourhood development plans (NDPs) featured in eight of the 14 schemes refused against inspectors’ advice. “It appears that the secretary of state is giving more weight than his inspectors to neighbourhood plans. These are certainly more popular in the south of England, where the Conservatives have more seats. It’s crazy that ministers are getting involved in schemes of a few dozen homes,” said Dyer.

The high percentage of decisions in Conservative seats is a function of England’s political geography and the significant weight the government attaches to NDPs, said Matthew Spry, senior director at consultancy Lichfields. “Conservative seats are focused more in rural areas, so it’s more likely they will encounter greenfield schemes that attract call-in or recovery. It’s the same with NDPs – 79 per cent of made neighbourhood plans are in Conservative-controlled councils, but these make up only 54 per cent of all councils.”

David Bainbridge, a planning partner at consultants Bidwells, pointed to a correlation between high housing demand, constrained land supply and political governance. “Conservative controlled councils in the South East and East of England are subject to significant growth pressures.” In that event, he said, “the more vocal and motivated opposition will use political connections to assist their case”. He added: “If local politicians support the proposed development, ministerial intervention is less likely. But many of us have the feeling that more appeals are recovered, or at least that more are refused, in the run-up to a general election.”

Simon Neate, a director at consultancy Indigo Planning, said the preponderance of ministerial interventions in Tory seats revealed by the Irwin Mitchell research is probably due to better links between residents and their MPs and ministers in rural or semi-rural areas with environmental and landscape protection. “Conservative-minded people are likely to be conservative in other respects and more likely to object. Attractive places attract civic-minded people anxious to protect local amenities and often well equipped to do something about it,” he said.

Commenting on the key findings from the Irwin Mitchell study, a Department for Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “The secretary of state, in considering called-in applications and recovered appeals, will always focus on the merits of the individual cases before making a decision, having full regard to the inspector’s report. His role is to reach a view based upon his consideration of the facts.”
Separate research by Indigo presented at last week’s Planning for Housing conference, organised by Planning, indicates that the proportion of appeals dismissed where councils could show a five-year land supply increased from 14 per cent in January 2016 to 25 per cent this August. The research also revealed that the overall number of homes allowed on appeal decreased from 34,000 in 2015/16 to 28,000 in 2016/17, with a further drop predicted in 2017/18. But Neate said this was “more than compensated for” by a rise in the number of homes approved by local authorities. The DCLG has been approached for a statement.

Needless to say, one has not been forthcoming – ‘surprise, surprise.’

The morale of the tale… more green fields and open countryside going under concrete in the Waverley borough NEAR YOU?
Conservative Councillors can refuse planning applications locally, knowing that their refusal will be overturned on Appeal!


Is the temperature rising – at ‘Your Waverley’?


Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 18.52.56.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 20.02.49.png


When is prime agricultural land, not prime agricultural land?


When local authorities agree with each other that they  want to grant planning permission to build on it!

When Guildford councillors overturned their officers’ advice to approve an application to build 254 homes on the Waverley/Guildford border at Tongham, it sent temperatures rising at Waverley judging by Joint Planning Committee Chairman ‘Mao’ aka Peter Isherwood’s puce-face, he looked fit to burst a blood vessel!

Q When is a SANG ( Sustainable access to a natural green space) – not a SANG?

A When it cannot be accessed – from the A331 and the A31, and is isolated?

Guildford councillors’ objections centred around the ‘strain the proposed development would put on the local healthcare system’ and the lack of transport infrastructure in the area? Their decision was prompted by the concerns expressed by the Guildford & Waverley Care Commissioning Group(G&W CCG).

Wow! Who rattled its cage all of a sudden? It has been strangely silent on the question of development in the Waverley Borough, despite thousands of homes having already  been approved adding many more thousands of  extra patients  requiring  healthcare! Is the CCG waking up – at last! Or is it only waking up in Guildford – and not Waverley?

The planning officers led by Liz The Biz recommended approval of the hybrid application, but changed her mind when Guildford councillors said NO.  Never mind the fact that there proposed development would breach the strategic gap between Farnham and Guildford, just a minor difficulty really! Anything goes in Waverley.

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 18.55.38.png

 One of our followers  in the east summed it all up (below) – after  the unanimous decision by Waverley’s JPC to refuse the application to provide  green space on their side of the boundary, to allow the huge development on the Guildford side to go ahead.

P.S. It goes to appeal next week! So watch this space!

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 20.05.55.pngScreen Shot 2017-10-12 at 20.06.11.png

Dumb and Dumber making an ‘ASH’ of it… again?


£27m of the county council’s pension fund invested in tobacco companies – and a £400,000 grant to the Watts Gallery when at the same time  borough councils are forced to kick wardens out of sheltered accommodation, and recycling centres shut their gates to the public – most of the week!

You couldn’t make it up could you? Because it is also promoting The Stop Smoking Campaign throughout the county!

DUMBANDDUMBERAnd now Dumb and Dumber  want everyone in Surrey to write to the Prime Minister to complain about central government funding cuts. The Waverley Web sincerely hopes Theresa May sends them away with a flea in their ears.

Surrey is one of the most prosperous counties  in the country. Its residents pay squillions in taxes, mostly pay for their own elderly care and many provide their own private health-care. The charitable sector is also one of the best funded in the country, and thanks to the generosity of Surrey residents who volunteer and give up many millions of hours of their time – voluntary organisations and the arts continue.

So what the hell is the council doing with our money? Isn’t it time Surrey County Council starts thinking about its  priorities?  

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 21.30.12.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-19 at 21.30.55.pngScreen Shot 2017-10-19 at 21.31.24.png

By Jove – Waverley Planners have broken the habit of a life-time and REFUSED a development in the east.


 There we were  the  cynical souls at the Waverley Web only yesterday predicting that the Planning Officers jackboot would be firmly put up the arse of the Joint Planning Committee to ensure development of 58 dwellings would go ahead in Ewhurst. So we were wrong!

But 10 out of 10 to the officers and their YES men for trying!

Oops here goes another Neighbourhood Plan.

Just as well our editorial team didn’t put a bet on this Larkfield, Ewhurst scheme  which was REFUSED by 10 votes to eight. We would have sworn Liz the Biz would have pummelled wannabe objectors into line. And… are we  mistaken? Was  demob happy  Peter Cleveland showing his softer side as he is leaving Waverley Towers to work for – would you Adam and Eve it developers, and there were we thinking he already did!

Needless to say all the usual culprits Michael Goodridge (unelected Wonersh), Mike Band (Cranleigh)  Chairman Peter Isherwood (Hindhead), etc  stuck their mits in the air, supporting development, anytime, any place, anywhere, regardless of highway dangers, the views of the locals, and certainly NOT – the lack of suitable infrastructure, on a dangerous junction. Would have been a different story had our Farnham twins Carole Cockburn and Pat Frost been there. Only 18 members turned up!

Ewhurst Parish Councillor Mike Turner together with a villager put up a strong case for kicking former resident Peter Nutting’s application to extend the Larkfield development on The Green into touch.  A scheme, which if allowed, could open the floodgates to further development at the back of Mapledrakes Road and could herald a huge change in  Ewhurst’s rural character.

Mr Brierley (sorry couldn’t hear…again (?)  speaking for objectors argued Waverley’s Local Plan proposed 100 dwellings in Ewhurst between 2013-2032.

 “So we should be building 57 homes over the next 15 years not 58 homes over the next 15 months.’

Referring to  outstanding consents at Backward Point  and outstanding appeals at Chanrossa on Cranleigh Road,  he argued  if these were combined with the Larkfield  scheme  it would amount to a huge character change for  Ewhurst. A rural village with few amenities, and which relied on Cranleigh for most of its services. 

Borough Councillor Val Henry, who had no vote, said four minutes was insufficient to sum up her strong opposition, which had generated  huge objection from villagers. She warned of the consequences of making the highway improvements proposed by SCC highways, and claimed HGV’s were already badly damaging roads.The loss of mature trees would impact on The Green and,  ‘the street scene will be changed for all time.’ It would also virtually scupper the emerging Neighbourhood Plan

Ewhurst is now a well  used  rat run from Horsham, through Shere and onto the A3.

Alfold’s Kevin Deanus, said from the outset he was “totally opposed’, and would  vote against. The developer is trying to squash a pint into a half pint pot, The Green is a C listed road, – do I believe an access is suitable there? – No I DO NOT!

Cranleigh Councillor Mary Foryszewski preceded her objection by saying she was ‘thoroughly  depressed’  being asked, yet again,  to permit yet more development on the borough’s green fields. ‘One meeting after another we are  asked to support development on yet another of our green fields, Cranleigh, Alfold, and Ewhurst’s  – I know I won’t be listened too, but watch this space,  eventually it will  come to the rest of the borough’s  green fields, near you.

Screen Shot 2017-10-18 at 22.57.33.png‘Richard Cooper SCC highway ‘expert’ said there was NO road safety danger at the Ewhurst junction. (remember: an ex is a has-been and a spurt is a drip under pressure) the same sort of ‘experts’  who defended the indefensible granting 54 homes on a Cranleigh flood plain for Thakeham homes.  The same ‘ex-perts’ that painted a blue line and pretended it was a pavement, instead of a proper pavement, for the Baker Oates development in Boundstone, Farnham.

The councillor who describes himself as ‘the Cranleigh lorry driver’ owner of Stennetts Transport, described the proposed, so-called  highway improvements, as dangerous. Warning HGV’s would be forced to drive on the wrong side of the road, facing oncoming traffic . The same road used daily by Ockley brick lorries – click on the link below to see just how many more lorries!

.Is another ‘horrendous’ scheme on its way to the MAD WORLD THAT IS THE.. East of Waverley?

But after the application was refused – the officers warned that traffic concerns should NOT be used as grounds for refusal – because – the ex-perts had a different view! And there was a strong chance there would be another APPEAL!









Oops here goes another Neighbourhood Plan.


Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 18.32.23.png

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 19.29.53.pngDown the pan goes Cranleigh’s Neighbourhood Plan, then Farnham’s, Alfold’s and now its the turn of the Surrey Hills village of Ewhurst.

Isn’t it time  to rip up all the borough’s Neighbourood Plans – forget the many millions of hours spent by thousands of residents across the borough in their preparation. Because Waverley has a developer led plan, backed by Government Inspectors’ all of whom are determined to cover ‘Your Waverley’ in concrete.

This week it is the turn of Ewhurst to be ignored by Liz the Biz and the rest of Waverley’s shove and shunt planning officers – one of whom is off to greener pastures, where no doubt, he will soon be covering that in concrete?

On Wednesday the jackboot of Elizabeth Sims( LTB) will go under the arse of Peter Cleveland, and Chairman Peter Isherwood to shove through 58 homes into the foot of the picturesque Surrey hills . Land  owned by Peter Nutting has been earmarked,  after his previous success developing the countryside in homes and now called Larkfield,  wants to trouser a bit more dosh by knocking down two homes to force  onto more of his land behind for another 58. Not in his name of course!

Screen Shot 2017-10-16 at 18.54.42.png

Having buggered off to Hampshire’s countryside, the former Ewurst resident is eager  to plump up his bank balance, having once told its residents how much he and his family cared for the place they once called home.

So ditch the Neighbourhood Plan, and let’s all hear ‘Your Waverley’, not ours any more,  here at the Waverley Web we’re  too ashamed to own up to recognising this council as ‘ours’,  as it recommends  its  handpicked councillors, which won’t include substitutes from Cranleigh,  consent to  homes beyond the Green Belt. Homes outside the defined settlement on a site which was not allocated within its own Draft Local Plan, or was put forward as a suitable site in the Council’s (2016) Land Availability Assessment.

Oh, and forget that it is  good agricultural land, or that there is ancient woodland or trees covered by  Tree Preservation Orders which will have to go. Just give them the chop and plant some new ones around the little boxes. As for the wildlife! what wildlife? Sod them,  they can always gravitate up the hill a bit, because there’s no gold in them there hills – or is there?

What ever you do JPC – don’t take a blind bit of notice of the parish council or the villagers of Ewhurst over there in the East, because most of them are just Tory voting fodder, who will rock-up at the next election and vote for anything BLUE!

But just REMEMBER – the new residents will rely for almost every service they use, including GP’s on CRANLEIGH NEW TOWN!

 Inspector SJ Buckingham maintained the site in Farnham mentioned below was ‘ previously developed land’ in other words – a brown field site, and would not be ‘especially harmful in the countryside’. Funny,  Waverley planners seem less reticent about granting permissions on the countryside, even around flood plains, in the East of the borough.

So – another shed-load of legal costs will soon drop into the council tax-payers lap.




In one short, succinct letter to the Haslemere Herald, Peter Maltby, of Chiddingfold, has explained why Sajid Javid should pull his finger out and grant consent for the Dunsfold Park planning application which is currently gathering dust on his desk.

Forget Mistress Milton. Forget Jeremy SHunt. Forget PoW. Forget the Waverley Web. Just read and digest the argument put forward by Mr Maltby, a Chiddingfold resident who is fed up with the Parish Councils, in cahoots with PoW, who are persistently not representing the views of the majority of local residents like him.

Oh! and don’t forget Mr Maltby, and all you other unsuspecting parish residents, your parish councils are spending your money opposing Dunsfold, and your borough council is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of your money – supporting Dunsfold Park! You couldn’t make it up!!

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 16.31.28.png

17.10.12 - Dunsfold site is too good to miss copy.png

Apologise! Why would Hunt the Shunt – apologise, you have to be a BIG man to do that … don’t you?


Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 16.01.49


“I really must try harder to tell the TRUTH.”

Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 16.01.49.png

After making a false claim, a very false claim, in fact 43(x) times a false claim, in the House of Commons on World Health Day – our MP has remained shtum and allowed the Department of Health to correct Hansard on his behalf.

The MP for South West Surrey told his colleagues there were 30,000 more people working in mental health now, compared to when Labour left office.

It’s ok  for Hunt, because the official record (Hansard) has been corrected, and the DoH says, ‘he has no intention of apologising.’  Why would he – he wouldn’t know how!Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 16.28.24.png

Barbara Keeley, Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Member for Mental Health and Social Care said: ‘The Tory government claim to want to make mental health a priority, but Jeremy Hunt doesn’t even know how many mental health staff are working in the NHS.

“Safe staffing was an issue raised by the CQC’s new State of Care report recently. Labour will invest more in mental health so that all services are staffed safely.”

Mr Hunt initially made the claim in response to the opening question from Tory colleague Stephen McPartland  in the Health Questions in the House of Commons.

A question provided to Mr Hunt in advance of the session, by Mr McPartland asked “what steps he has taken to increase the size of the mental health workforce.”

Reading from papers in front of him, Mr Hunt replied: “Our mental health workforce has increased by 30,000 since 2010, and another 21,000 posts are planned.”


When a Member of Parliament inadvertently misleads the house, it is common practice for them to APOLOGISE  to the house.  

Dave Munday, the Unite union’s lead officer for mental health said: “Jeremy Hunt is shameless in trying to distort the true reality of what’s happened to mental health nursing under the Tories and should apologise to parliament.

“On his watch we’ve seen the number of mental health nurses plummet by 13.1% because of austerity and real term pay cuts. The truth is there’s a crisis in mental health because of him and the Tory government.”

Mr Hunt has previously been accused of misleading the House over his claim that there were 11,000 ‘excess deaths’ in the NHS at weekends.

 He also told Waverley Tories he didn’t intend to interfere in the Dunsfold Park planning saga, which is situated a mile from his home, and then proceeded to tell  a woman on Godalming Station, he was opposed to the development.

White man speaks with forked tongue comes to mind.


Screen Shot 2017-10-12 at 16.04.15.png



The Waverley Web has always thought of The Telegraph as a serious newspaper with an international reputation for quality reporting ‘of record’ …

But that was before we read in the October 8th edition of The Sunday Telegraph that they’d tipped Mistress Milton as a potential contender for the Leadership of the Tory Party in their ‘On the rise Tory contenders in the ranks’ article …

Are they mad?

Who, outside of Waverley, has even heard of Mistress Milton?

After a lot of back patting – having choked on our croissants and coffee – to a wo/man our editorial team concluded that someone at The Telegraph was having a joke – a BIG joke – at Mistress Milton’s expense. Well, what else are we supposed to think when one looks at the quality of the other contenders on the list – Dominic Raab, Esther McVey, Jo Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg … need we go on?

And, if further proof were needed, with Britain building 60,000 too few homes a year and an affordability crisis that has caused home ownership among the young to slump by a third, that Flag-Waving-NIMBY, the Rt Hon Anne Milton MP, is the last woman likely to be chosen to address that particular problem.

Not only has she openly boasted about how she whipped Sajid Javid (Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government) into calling in an application on the largest brownfield site – which isn’t even in her constituency! – but she’s so far behind the times in Cranleigh she needs to get on a moving-walkway just to stand still! Whilst boasting that Cranleigh only needs a few hundred homes, it seems to have entirely passed her by that consent has been granted for over 1,800 – with many more in the pipeline! – and all because she got Dunsfold Park called in to appease the cash-and-clout-brigade in Alfold and Dunsfold who line her election coffers.

Now the crash and clout brigade are moving in  on our Annie’s little political sinecure of Ewhurst, where a ‘once local landowner and Annie supporter’ wants to build another shedload of houses.

annemilton_newoutfitOnce we’d all stopped laughing, one of our more astute editors pointed out that the even more interesting point about the article was what it didn’t say … not a word about Jeremy SHunt, Mistress Milton’s parliamentary colleague, whom it’s rumoured locally was hiding behind her starched linen skirts when she battered, bullied, cajoled and finally whipped Javid into doing their bidding! How the mighty have fallen!!!

You can read the Telegraph article here:


When will someone within ‘Your Waverley’s’ the hallowed halls be held accountable for their BIG mistakes?


Croydon Council kicked Waverley’s ‘Omen’ into touch with a golden goodbye, and ‘Your Waverley’ welcomed him with open arms. He has seen off two Chief Executives – Mrs MOP and Wen-am-I leaving, but now his reign is over… WW wonders WHY?

After all – didn’t he do well – he managed to kick Age UK Waverley into touch – even suggesting, just a month ago, that all the other voluntary sector organisations would do much better if they were funded by a Waverley Lottery leaving  ‘Your Waverley’ to trouser £750,000 a year, by dumping their future funding on… US.

Yep,  it’s called double whammy!

Then of course he managed to re-new all the old people’s day centre leases, making it even more difficult for them to stay in the black, and…

re-negoiated the 100 year-lease on Cranleigh’s beloved day centre, and exchanged it for a 25 year-lease which,  if the organisation fails, YES YOU GUESSED… the lease returns to your very clever WBC! So… a building funded by the residents of Cranleigh, on land owned by ‘YW’ goes right back to “YW.’ Who can then do just what the hell they like with it!

His colleagues call him THE OMEN, we here at the WW call him the ‘Silent Assassin.’

Good luck Epsom and Ewell Council – you lose -we gain! And… he gets out, yet again,  before the mucky brown stuff hits the proverbial fan!!



Another one heads for the…Screen Shot 2017-10-09 at 19.00.47.png

You can read the pdf file here:

17.10.12 – Council chief quits shortly before the outcome of air quality report copy

‘Your Waverley’s’ very own ‘Billy no mates,’ stands up for Cranleigh and is slapped down…again.


Here is a clip of Farnham Residents’ Councillor Jerry Hyman explaining why 54 homes should not be built on the flooded fields pictured below:

Screen Shot 2017-10-02 at 17.54.20.png

Just in case you missed one of our Farnham councillors speaking up for Cranleigh in  a bid to persuade Waverley Planners from making yet another… MISTAKE.. A BIG MISTAKE.Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 16.21.28


The morale of the tale is quite simple.




Ignore ‘local knowledge,’ refuse to allow pictorial evidence to be shown, because it could provide valuable evidence that could influence the decision-makers, who continually ignore the views of Cranleigh councillors, and remember that Chairman Moa is in charge – and the “experts and the lead flood authority are always right’

So don’t forget  Cranleigh residents – the  next time your homes go under a couple of feet of floodwater, and the summer stench and fly infestations are difficult for you to bear…  in 2017 the ‘experts’ said…

No problem! and so did a Touch of Frost and Chairman Mao!

Thakeham’s home – but certainly not dry!

%d bloggers like this: