An open letter to Dear Denise & Doubting Thomas.

Featured

WHAT IS A SECTION 106 Agreement and how does it work?

Sorry! You may need of cup of tea and a lie down after reading this!

We preface this piece with an explanation for our followers, like Awfold’s Dear Denise, who has trawled tirelessly looking for answers – often in the dead of night after she has returned from an exhausting journey to London … to WORK!

 Dear Denise is one of those dreaded commuters that no one in the Parishes likes – because they clog up the local roads and create rat-runs down picturesque country lanes – and yet they all do it! A classic case of that, oh so parochial, Don’t do what I do, do what I say! But, at least Denise cares about the borough and wants and deserves – ANSWERS! 

So here goes… 

We, here at the WW, are not planners, or even experts in our field – as some of our more critical followers do like to keep reminding us – but at least we have a go. OK, we’ll say it before you do: We’re always having a go at someone!

However, we’ve excelled this time and brought in an expert – we found one loitering on Haslemere High Street and dragged them in and conducted what’s known locally as the Dunsfold Inquisition – similar to the Spanish – but instead of torture we plied our Legal Eagle with coffee and cakes – cost us a bloody fortune.

So…  down to business! This is serious stuff because it’s been keeping Dear Denise and her fellow commuters awake at night! The poor souls have enough to contend with just getting to Waterloo to earn an honest crust!

Dear Denise & Doubting Thomas

First of all let’s give this some context, for those who don’t know how a Section 106 (s106) works, to ensure everybody understands what it’s for and what it can, and cannot do.

Begin by going to the government’s planning portal website and you will find this page  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-obligations

Screen Shot 2017-08-15 at 22.58.52.png
Use of planning obligations and process for changing obligations. 

Your Waverley is still using this type of agreement with developers because it doesn’t yet have Community Infrastructure Levy (otherwise known as CIL). Rather worse than that, as you will see, s106 relates to the development plan and, in theory, Waverley’s development plan is the 2002 Local Plan! But Waverley is where Waverley is, so, let’s cut to the chase, and address the big question: What does all this mean for local residents?

One of the critical points our Legal Eagle (LE) highlighted is that a planning obligation must be “directly related to the development”.

Some of Dunsfold Park’s (DP) contributions, particularly those going to Surrey County Council, are calculated per head and our LE thinks this includes education, libraries (yes, you might well ask, What libraries?)  sport & leisure. DP  may be different because it’s providing on-site sports facilities as part of its  new development. Rumour has it, it’s also stumping up the monies to help pay for a new leisure centre in Cranleigh. So that’s a win-win for Cranleigh residents!

Some are not fixed per capita – highways being a good example. These contributions are a matter of negotiation in each case. So the anticipated impact of the development on the surrounding area has to be agreed between Waverley BC, Surrey CC and the applicant (DP) and evidenced. So that is why it is being asked for some contributions for some junctions but not, for example, to sort out the existing mess in Cranleigh. In other words, (DP) has to mitigate the effects of its development as and when built. It  doesn’t have to sort out the existing mess because its nothing to do with them. We know some  like to blame (DP) for everything and anything that goes wrong in Waverley but, it isn’t!

Contributions
A s106, particularly on a large site like DP, doesn’t attribute a monetary value to all the benefits a developer will be providing but these very significant benefits still represent a massive and total cost to the developer.

Which probably explains why Dear Denise, despite all her midnight trawling can only find £18 million. If you look at your own schedule,  Denise, you will see there are a whole host of developer funded contributions/obligations which don’t have a figure against them. That’s because the Dunsfold Developer has to provide those facilities themselves within the  new development and at its cost. Just because they are part of the development, doesn’t mean they come at no cost to the developer!

A Community Land Trust, a Community Centre and contributions to canal works will  all  come at significant cost. That’s why, Dear Denise, we are told, you can only find £18 million. Also, unless our LE has missed something, there is no mention of the actual Bus contribution but there is one; much was made of it during the Public Inquiry because it’s going to be underwritten by a lien on rental income from the Commercial Park to ensure the Bus contribution is guaranteed. No wriggle room there then!

Phasing and details

This is what’s known, in the trade, as a hybrid application (ie, there are elements of both detailed and outline planning consent) because a developer can’t apply for a demolition application as an outline application. Otherwise for such a large application it would have all been in outline.

Why? Because – no matter how much you hate developers – it’s unreasonable to expect them to spend shed loads of dosh working out the fine details of a planning permission – or, for that matter, to expect a local authority to commit all the officer time and resources required when neither party knows if the developer is going to get a planning consent at the end of it. So, what’s happening here is all perfectly normal in planning terms. That would be like being asked to pay for a dress/trousers before you took it into the changing room and not getting a refund if they didn’t fit!

There are mechanisms for dealing with the outstanding issues in the conditions and in the reserved matters. Our LE hasn’t seen the detail of  DP’s planning conditions or Reserved Matters but, we are told, that’s where a lot of the final detail will be thrashed out. And that’s perfectly normal, particularly for a big development of this size, which will be developed, in phases, over many years; between 10 and 15, probably.

Again, this is perfectly normal and much of the detail, including details of the phasing, will still need to be worked out and that in itself could take a couple of years! What our LE  did detect though, is that a lot of attention has already been given to the aspects which are really important to Waverley BC, like the housing mix and speed of delivery/construction.

The other thing the planning system recognises, and pretty well all s106 implicitly recognise – and this application is no exception – is that you can’t expect a developer to pay all the contributions up front. Yeah, we know it’s a bugger but even the wealthiest developers have cash flow issues. They have to spend a lot of money upfront on the site – installing utilities, roads, earth moving, etc, – so they need to make a bit of dosh on the way through to replenish their own coffers through house sales, otherwise who’d be a developer? We know it’s a dirty job and people don’t like them but someone’s got to do it or the next generation will all be living in tents!

As far as the highways contributions go, LE said they seem perfectly fair and reasonable. After all, if the new residents the developer hopes  to attract to the village fail to materialise there can be no impact on the highways and no educational requirement for non-existent children!

Also, Dear Denise, you need to remember, as mentioned earlier, that point about contributions being “directly related to the development”, because a developer isn’t supposed to be paying to remedy an existing problem, just to mitigate the effects of his development! Yeah, we know you and Doubting Thomas don’t think that’s fair but you wouldn’t think it fair if you were asked to pay to tarmac your neighbour’s pot-hole riven drive or repair his leaking conservatory roof, now would you? So why should a Developer be asked to fix an existing problem he didn’t create and has no responsibility for?

Our LE doesn’t understand your point,  Denise, about the distribution of housing. If you are referring to an ideal world, where housing should be better distributed across the borough, they would agree but, in the real world, distribution is distorted by the protection given to the Green Belt and the AONB here in Waverley. What can you do?

Well, of course, we all know what Charles William Orange Esq and his cohorts want to do; they want to build  over our green fields and Green Belt – on land they own!  In reality, most reasonable people want to protect our  fields and Green Belt and build on brown fields first, if  they’re lucky enough to have them!

So, for all our sakes, let’s hope the future’s bright but that it’s not ORANGE!

Our LE, who lives locally – well, they would if we dragged them in off Haslemere High Street – has followed the Dunsfold Park Saga since 2009 and concluded by saying, with the benefit of hindsight, if the Borough (under Mary Orton-Pett, Richard Shut-the-Gates, Robert Knowless and Bypass Byham) had had the vision – to say nothing of the daring! – to accept and support what was proposed at Dunsfold Park in 2009, Waverley BC would have had a new Local Plan by 2013, using the South East Regional Plan housing figures. That being the case, many of those houses would have been built by now, with more coming along; Waverley would also, therefore, have had CIL and there would not now be virtually uncontrolled development across the borough but, especially, in Cranleigh.

So, in a nutshell, Waverley’s in the mess it’s in because it’s dragged its heels, thought it could buck the system and the Cash & Clout Brigade think, based on past experience, that they can buy influence within the Tory Government because they write big cheques to fund Jeremy Hunt’s new en-suite and Anne Milton’s ego. Who knows, maybe they can but if they do, GOD HELP THE REST OF THE BOROUGH – by which we mean Cranleigh, Godalming and here in Farnham. After all, we know how much PoW & the Parishes care about us; their caring, sharing nature was amply demonstrated when one man (that Dick De’Anus) and his dog turned up for the Thakeham Thugs Inquiry, whilst the rest of the Cash & Clout Brigade hi-tailed it to the Burys to demonstrate their disapproval of the Dunsfold Developer!

So, there you have it, Dear Denise and Doubting Thomas, we’ve done our best to answer your questions. If you have any more, might we suggest that maybe you should think about bearding the Dunsfold Developer in his lair? Despite all the rumours – sadly, even our best endeavours have not been able to track down the names of any babies he’s snatched or pet poodles he’s eaten for breakfast. He’d probably welcome you with open arms – or, at the very least, a cup of coffee and a biscuit – and answer any outstanding questions you might have about his s106 contributions.

We’d love to pop along ourselves but then we’d have to adopt a Burqa to protect our identity and a Burqa-clad man on an aerodrome is likely to raise all sorts of security issues in this weird and wonderful world we inhabit.

But, if you do pick up the phone and get an invitation to morning coffee or afternoon tea, do, PLEASE, write in and tell us all about it because we’d love to know – in fact, we’re dying to know – what the Dunsfold Developer’s lair is really like. Someone once told us he had a dartboard with Robert Knowless and Richard Shut-the-Gates’ heads on it and the staff play Pin the Tail on the Donkey with a photo of Kevin De’Anus’s … OK, let’s keep it clean! You get the picture.

Sorry this is rather long- but you did pose an AWfold lot of Quetions:

With love from all at The Waverley Web xxx

P.S. Please keep writing to us – but we can’t promise to persuade the Legal Eagle to guide us through any more questions – because it has taken flight!

Four-lane dual carriageway/Motorway to plough through famous Surrey cricket green! The Silly Season – or an early April Fool?

Featured

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 08.33.54.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 21.22.34

Who is up for a fight! But needs to get her facts right! Read this tosh that is now circulating the area!IMG_0446.JPG.jpeg

A regular reader sent us the above note, from some daft bird called Daphne Robinson – the aforementioned ‘extremely pissed-off woman.

For Christ’s sake Daffers, it’s all very well going around spouting off about ‘Power to the People’ but you need to be sure you know your arse from your elbow before you let rip! If you don’t you’ll become known locally as that Daft Bird Daphne! And you don’t want that, do you?!

Where on earth did you get this tripe from? Have you been looking at the Dunsfold Park planning application or have you simply been talking to your neighbour across the garden fence, who heard it from their daughter, who got it from her cousin’s Aunty Ethel twice removed?

Even PoW & the Parishes couldn’t make this up – although they had a damn good try, at the Public Inquiry and, in the process, made some old codger from the cricket club look a right ass!

So sit down, Daffers, make yourself a nice cup of coffee, break out the ginger nuts, and let us explain matters to you.

As everyone over there in the East all know, the Shalford roundabout in question is one of the daftest arrangements known to local residents. Who else, but Surrey CC would force traffic coming out of Broadford Road to turn left – when it wants to go right – and navigate a roundabout before sending it back in the same direction it’s just come from? This, in turn, creates a log-jam because traffic waiting on the A281 to turn right into Broadford Road, holds up traffic going south towards Bramley. It’s a complete bugger’s muddle!

As we understand it, Shalford Cricket Pitch is not being touched in any way. This was explained at the Dunsfold Park Inquiry when someone from Shalford Cricket Club was worried about losing his balls – although our correspondent doubted he had any! It was pointed out to him that the brief widening of the A281 and the creation of a new roundabout at Broadford Road would eradicate the current problems and improve traffic flow, thus eliminating delays at that point.

This is all happening on the opposite side of the road to the Common and the cricket pitch, where there is currently nothing more than a ditch. Surely, this proposal is an improvement that we would all welcome?

You really should be more careful, Daffers. We know you’re a pissed-off but that’s because you’re misinformed. Get your facts right! Otherwise, you’re going to become known locally as the woman who opens her mouth before she engages

her duck brain – or do you?

 Screen Shot 2017-08-17 at 21.22.07

More secrets – more lies – competing with the BIG BOYS – that’s the latest game for our local authorities!

Featured

We here at the Waverley Web have been ranting on for over a year about the risky property ventures  embarked upon by our local authorities. Others are now condemning the use of public money- our money  – some of which is heading for an  investment in the borough of Waverley that the private sector wouldn’t touch!

This is a comment from one of our followers: 

 Why is  SurreyCounty Council  so shy of informing the people who pay them and their elected representatives about the investments they make on our behalf? Can they be trusted to manage our money sensibly?

Well, it doesn’t look like they know how to when it comes to funding Farnham’s Brightwells Scheme and all the city experts have refused to touch it over the last many years. How can our County Council be stopped? Can councillors of all parties be persuaded to rise up in protest? Surely councillors could be vulnerable to surcharge if it all goes wrong and council tax payers money is lost? This is an absolute scandal!

With over £50m of the taxpayers’ money earmarked, and on its way, to fund part of Farnham’s  Blightwells East Street Development,  the county’s Lib Dems have put a marker in the ever shifting sands by condemning the county council’s strategy and the way in which decisions are now being made!

Screen Shot 2017-08-15 at 21.37.12.png

Cllr Hazel Watson, Leader of the Liberal Democrats on Surrey County Council, said today:

“This money is public money and it has to be used carefully and responsibly for the benefit of Surrey residents. I am deeply concerned that the current return on the county council’s investment portfolio of commercial properties, worth £223m, is actually only £1.8m – a return of less than one percent. Despite this, the Conservative administration at County Hall plans to dramatically increase its commercial property empire around the UK so that by 2020/21 it will be worth between £0.5bn and £1bn, with an annual return of £10m which is a return rate of between one percent and two percent.

“Furthermore, the Conservative administration wants to take these important decisions in secret and to remove the opportunity for scrutiny before individual decisions are taken to buy commercial properties worth millions of pounds. This is akin to gambling with public money, and exposes the county council to an unacceptable level of financial risk.

“The original principles behind the strategy were to approve “Investments that have the potential to support economic growth in the county of Surrey”. However the reality has been quite different to date, with over £148m worth of commercial properties outside Surrey purchased by the council’s wholly-owned property company Halsey Garton between November 2015 and December 2016. The large sums of money involved and the level of risk require more, not less, scrutiny to safeguard public money. The county council should be focussing on becoming more efficient and providing better services to Surrey residents, rather than acting like a property investment company in the private sector.”

NOTES

A list of commercial properties purchased by the County Council can be found here:property-list

The new investment strategy can be found here:

https://mycouncil.surreycc.gov.uk/documents/g5105/Public%20reports%20pack%20Tuesday%2028-Mar-2017%2014.00%20Cabinet.pdf?T=10

Have our followers found the answer to the Foryszewski Saga?

Featured

You may remember we posted a WANTED notice a week or so back! You can refresh your memory here:

Part 1 – of some people will go to any lengths to get planning permissions.

THE FORYSZEWSKI SAGA.

Part 11 of – Some people will go to extreme lengths to get planning permission!

Screen Shot 2017-08-15 at 10.58.57.png

Ye Gods! Whoever would have thought our little Wanted Poster, appealing for information, would have resulted in such an avalanche of emo skidding into our in box. It nearly crashed the Waverley Web!!!

We’ve had to pick our way through the glut of speculation, titillation and utter rubbish that’s been sent our way but, bit by bit we’ve dug and layer by layer, we’ve peeled our way to what we believe is a fair understanding of that to which Councillor Foryszewski was alluding.

The first clue, which many of our readers cottoned onto, was that Councillor Foryszewski was speaking in advance of a planning application relating to  Little Meadow, which is owned or controlled by Crownhall Estates Ltd, which is based at The Common in Cranleigh.

Local businessman, Hamish Robbie, is the gentleman (although, in the circumstances – more of which later – Mr Robbie would appear to be no gentleman!) understood to be behind the allegation Councillor Foryszewski was alluding to.

As we understand it, Mr Robbie has made some pretty colourful, foul and – as Mrs Foryszewski intimated – completely unsubstantiated allegations about the  Councillor.

What a pity Mr Robbie didn’t take a leaf out of his own book and ape the advice he offers on his Twitter Account: ‘The less said the better!’

Waverley Web’s advice to Councillor Foryszewski: ‘speak to the other party mentioned by Mr Robbie in relation to his allegations!!

We’re quite sure if that person was aware of Mr Robbie’s allegations – given they’re renowned for their deep pockets and short fuse – they would wring a retraction out of Mr Robbie faster than the eejit Mr Robbie can utter the words, ‘Help! I need a Libel Lawyer!’

And, if they don’t we, at the Waverley Web, look forward to covering the case when it gets to court! Not least because we’d be very interested to learn who it was that put the gullible Mr Robbie up to this distasteful farrago. Knowing the dramatis personae involved, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work it out but if the Waverley Web named names of the cabal most likely to be behind this deeply distasteful slur on Councillor Forsewski, without firm evidence of their involvement, we’d be behaving as badly as that gullible eejit Mr Robbie and we like to think we’re a little bit better than Mr Robbie and his ‘secret meeting’ cohorts.

So, Mr Robbie, why don’t you either put up or withdraw the allegation? And, whilst you’re at the latter – as our sources don’t believe you have either the evidence or the balls for the former – apologise, unreservedly, to Councillor Foryszewski for

1. Being such an eejit!
2. For being so gullible!
3. For having a big, potty, gob!
4. And for failing to engage the brain – that we can only assume you must possess – before opening it!

If not, you not only get our award for

1. Wally of the Week
2. but Mouth of the Month
3. and Yob of the Year.

So, brace yourself, because you could be getting regular mentions henceforth here on the Waverley Web! 

Oh and if you want to tap him on the shoulder and tell him yourself he’s  pictured here:

Screen Shot 2016-06-14 at 21.01.32.png
Our advice to the gullible Mr Robbie: Why don’t you make yourself a nice cup of coffee, sit down and think about how you’d feel if your wife was the subject of allegations, made by a gullible eejit like yourself, similar to those you’ve made about Councillor Foryszewski … Not nice is it?

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to grow up, Mr Robbie, and contemplate the discombobulating realisation that you’ve been played like a fiddle! You’ve been a poodle and a puppet, used and, in turn, abused by someone or someones who wanted to settle a few scores, rattle a few cages and spike the guns of  a councillor who wouldn’t do what that, someone or someones, wanted them to do!

So go on, Mr Robbie, we dare you, why not be a man and admit you made a mistake? It can happen to the best of us – only difference is, the best of us own up and apologise when we do, rather than try to cover it up with a silo of silence! You can contact us at mailto: contact@waverleyweb.org

Is our Jeremy’s flushed with his own success of running down our health services?

Featured

Poor Old Jeremy, he can’t do right for doing wrong … or do we mean he can’t do wrong for doing right …

‘nuf said!

PS. Splatter Hazard Warning: Don’t read this article from today’s Daily Mail whilst drinking hot coffee or eating your cornflakes!

Screen Shot 2017-08-14 at 10.37.48.png

Oh!  don’t forget to hoot your horn when you are on your way to the Witley Recycling Depot with your rubbish!  Over there in the east of Waverley Surrey County Council is closing  the Nanhurst tip in Cranleigh because it is so strapped for cash! Hunt lives in Markwick Lane in Hascombe near Dunsfold en route to the Witley dump!

Read the article more clearly here:

20170814081730248 copy

While ‘Your Surrey’ invest millions in speculative property deals … are our vital public services footing the bill?

Featured

Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 22.11.28.png

Below is how a county council spokesman describes  the disgraceful state of one of Guildford’s main thoroughfares…

We are well-used to swinging our vehicles and bikes around the pot-holes in the minor roads,  but really!! This is Guildford’s North Street and according to the county council these are ‘shallow defects’ which are not necessarily ‘safety defects.’

Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 21.50.43.png

If the financial situation of Surrey County Council is so serious- then why is it funding the re-development of Farnham’s Blightwells East Street development?  Why is it putting up over £50m of our money into a development that the private sector wouldn’t touch? Why is it risking taxpayers’ money – our money?

Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 22.09.08.png

Don’t fence me in!

Featured

SING-A-LONG-WITH-BING…

The Chairman of Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee doesn’t want to see large ugly security fences become the norm in The Wunderland that is Your Waverley.

He doesn’t seem to mind how many homes are thrust upon certain parts of the borough – the East and West in particular, but he doesn’t like fences!

You can hear for yourself what he thinks of the large fences proposed along a once natural rural country lane called Alfold Road, Cranleigh.

councillor Peter Isherwood  was not too worried about 75 homes being built  close to the Ancient Woodland. That  is woodland that has been there since the 16th century but he is concerned that the new estates crapping up (damn that predicted  text) all over the borough will be surrounded by fences rather than the natural hedgerows. But don’t you worry you folks over there in the East the officers gave very good reasons why high fences  should become part of  Cranleigh `New Town’s urban street scene. 

Glad nobody listens to him either!   Indeed why should they – after all the officers ignore all the Cranleigh councillors comments – that is, those allowed to speak up, and more important, the handful that are allowed to vote!

 

 

‘WE HAVE TO END THE TYRANNY OF A MINORITY.’

Featured

BECAUSE THEIR ACTIONS COULD  HAVE A SERIOUSLY DAMAGING AFFECT ON US ALL!

It became increasingly apparent as the Dunsfold Park Inquiry progressed that the least public-spirited and responsible body in living local memory, PoW & the Parishes (routinely referred to as the Rule 6 Parties at the Inquiry), treat the question of housing as a game of cunning and conspiring.

To-day we received a comment from a follower that by even mentioning PoW we are giving it legitimacy! However, it is spreading such a web of lies, deceit and mis-information we MUST set the record straight and limit the damage it is doing to the Waverley borough.

 

Screen Shot 2017-08-05 at 14.58.47.png

We love PoW’s Sarah Sullivan’s artwork – but the message it conveys makes us want to SCREAM! Because the message it conveys is simply WRONG. Lorries and traffic will go through By-Pass Byham’s Bramley from Shoreham, from Gatwick from Horsham and all the new homes being built in Cranleigh and the villages – NOT JUST FROM DUNSFOLD!

This can only be because they and the majority of their supporters are insulated by comfortable levels of income and homes and have, at worst, completely forgotten and, at best, simply overlooked that their actions and objections affect the aspiration of young people to own their own homes and find jobs close to those homes. Surrey house prices are now 15x the national average and PoW and their acolytes need to recognise that much as they’d like to populate the villages with people in their own image, we can’t all be Captains of Industry!

We, at Waverley Web, never thought we’d be writing in praise of Julia Potts – the woman previously known as Gone-to-Potts – but it began to dawn on our Waverley-Watchers, as they witnessed the Borough gearing up for the now not-quite-so-daft looking Local Plan and the Dunsfold Park Inquiry, that under Councillor Potts, Waverley is galvanising.

For the first time, in a very long time, the Borough has a Leader who actually appears to be stepping up to the plate and forcing officers and councillors alike to face up to their housing responsibilities, rather than shirking them and trying to shove them onto other boroughs. This is a significant change from the shambolic, do-bugger-all politicks of Potts’ predecessors – Robert Knowless and Richard Shut-the-Gates!

There was a time – under Knowless & Shut-the-Gates – when putting the worried-well-to-do’s interests first came naturally to Waverley BC’s Leaders but in Councillor Potts we detect something of a sea change. Evidence of this is apparent in her and Liz-the-Biz’s willingness to bury the Council’s decade long differences with the Dunsfold Developer in order to bring forward a new village at Dunsfold Park in order to resolve a goodly part of the borough’s housing shortage.

A shortage that PoW & the Parishes – their backs against the wall – now suggest should be resolved by freeing up the Green Belt and green fields in and around their villages! Yep, you read it here first, if PoW & the Parishes get their way, hundreds of homes are coming to the villages of Alfold, Bramley, Busbridge, Dunsfold, Hambledon, Hascombe, Ifold, Loxwood & Plaistow.

Screen Shot 2017-08-10 at 12.18.55.png

Did the Parish Councils ask all 20,000 residents they claim to represent if they wanted to dish out their tax payer precept – rumoured to be around £6,000 per council – to pay for PoW’s barrister, planning and traffic experts.

Screen Shot 2017-08-10 at 12.24.09.png

Anyone who sat in the public gallery at The Burys during the first week of the Inquiry, when PoW & the Parishes’ – so-called – expert witnesses put their case, could tell PoW & the Parishes had been duped, sold a pup, a pig in a poke! In fact, if the Waverley Web was in PoW & the Parishes’ shoes, we’d be demanding our money back! Their witnesses conceded so many of their half-baked arguments under cross-examination by Rumpole and Wayne Beglan that we simply don’t have space or time in which to list them! As Rumpole so succinctly put it, the Rule 6 Parties’ case ‘unravelled’ and The Stinch’s closing submissions were ‘fantasy and fiction’!

Which brings us neatly to the latest mutter in the gutters of Godalming! Apparently, so reluctant were some of POW’s expert witnesses to work for them, they quoted 3x their normal fees in anticipation it would send PoW & the Parishes running for the Surrey Hills. Unfortunately – for the experts (and the Parishes’ coffers!) – the experts weren’t exactly lining up to align themselves with PoW so they had no option but to pay through the nose to get someone … anyone!

And, be warned, PoW’s about to circulate the begging bowl – again! Beverley Weddell, Clerk to Alfold Parish Council,  sent a letter to the Secretary of State (SoS) on behalf of Alfold, Bramley, Busbridge, Dunsfold, Hambledon, Hascombe, Ifold, Loxwood & Plaistow Parish Councils and the PoW Campaign formally requesting the SoS to:

[NB PLEASE NOTE THREE OF THESE PARISH COUNCILS ARE IN WEST SUSSEX!]

1. direct Waverley BC submit their emerging Replacement Local Plan to him for his approval

2. or to modify their Local Plan

3. or withdraw the document.

In the meantime, they want him (the SoS) to give a temporary direction that Waverley BC does not take any further step with regards to the preparation of their Local Plan until the SoS has reached a decision on their request.

One regular reader of the Waverley Web wrote in this week saying they now believe that PoW’s posturing is an almighty scam on behalf of the cash-and-clout brigade who are openly boasting that as soon as the Dunsfold Park application is routed Waverley’s well-to-do will be coming forward with applications to build on their own green fields! You don’t say! Quelle surprise!

But enough column inches have been devoted to POW, led by Charles William Orange Esq (AKA OJ – strapline: The future’s bright, the future’s Orange!) and Nic-the-Brick Pidgeon (who has admitted in the dim and not so distant past to having a pecuniary interest in the Springbok planning application to build 425 homes in the village everyone refers to as AWfold). 

More about Councillor Potts’ epiphany. We don’t want to speak too soon but we think we might be glimpsing a slow but sure change of direction from the Good Ship Waverley. The coming together of Councillor Potts and Liz-the-Biz and their apparent determination to do something to end the tyranny of a well-heeled minority who complain about anything being built within five miles of their In/Out drives and want to ban all cars – except their own – from the A281!

It could just be that in Councillor Potts we are finally seeing a local politician with the selflessness and vision to work in the interests of the wider borough, rather than just those of the cash-and-clout brigade from Awfold, CKerchingfold, Dudsfold and Where-Has-all-the-Traffic-Comb-Frome, who have, to their eternal shame, effectively, bullied and bought the submission of local MPs, Mistress Milton and Jeremy Shunt-all-the-housing onto someone else! More of which in a future post.

As a result, Waverley might, just might – but don’t hold your breath – emerge from the current situation in reasonably good shape!

We say ‘might’ because Councillor Potts and Liz-the-Biz are just two women and they’re up against some dark and very powerful forces who now want to build on green fields owned by them.

So there you have it, folks, if this Inspector and his boss, the Secretary of State, decide not to recommend in favour of the Dunsfold development, it’s going to be open season on every green field and piece of Green Belt land in the borough and the Coutts accounts of the cash-and-clout brigade will be going Ker-Ker-Kerching! No wonder they’re all so keen to derail housing at Dunsfold!

The final word on this has to go to that elder statesman of the three barristers at the recent Inquiry, Rumpole: “The very fact that the Rule 6 Parties speak in such terms shows what the planning system has to grapple with and face down here!”

See yesterday’s post – another shedload going onto a green field near YOU?

Another shed-load of housing on its way to ‘Poor old Cranleigh?’

Another shed-load of housing on its way to ‘Poor old Cranleigh?’

Featured

 

Screen Shot 2017-04-10 at 20.44.35

Just when those poor souls over there in the east of the borough thought they had sacrificed enough of their countryside on the alter’s of  developers – here they go again!!

Whilst Crest Nicholson’s head honcho sits comfortably in his Wonersh Park Home safe in the knowledge that he has By-Pass Byham; Michael ‘Sleepy’ Goodridge, and Mike ‘Rubber’ Band keeping developers away from his patch he is confident they will keep on voting for his developments just  as long as it is not in Bramley; Shamley Green or Wonersh.

Here comes another one they can stick their mits up for – Crest Nicholson’s latest offering in the once rural village now to become Cran1eigh New Town.

Screen Shot 2017-08-09 at 21.09.26.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-09 at 21.09.00.png

We do apologise to our readers – but there are so many – we cannot get all 119 which are added to the 149 already under construction into the picture.

We cynical lot here at the Waverley Web presume that he sewage will go into sh*t pits on site and be dumped slowly through an electrically operated  pumping system heading for the Cranleigh Sewage Treatment Plant to create yet another Nightmare on Elm Street! Where the residents of Elmbridge live under a stink cloud from the affluent’s effluent and where Cranleigh Waters remains polluted.

Screen Shot 2017-08-09 at 21.08.23.pngScreen Shot 2017-08-09 at 21.08.47.png

And if that isn’t enough to make you choke on your cornflakes this morning. CALA Homes want to add another shedload of homes into Amlets Lane  – and there are more to come!

Screen Shot 2017-08-09 at 21.10.22.png

Why? NO LOCAL PLAN – NO SAY, NO CONTROL.

 THE IDIOTS AMONG THE  PROTECT OUR LITTLE CORNER OF WAVERLEY CROWD WHO HAVE NOW CALLED THE VALIDITY OF WAVERLEY’S  LOCAL PLAN INTO QUESTION NOW WANT THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO INTERVENE!

WHILE  THEY WHISTLE IN THE WIND WAVERLEY’S COUNTRYSIDE CONTINUES TO SUFFER A HURRICANE!

Screen Shot 2017-08-09 at 21.40.09.pngScreen Shot 2017-08-09 at 21.40.49.png