POW in takeover bid for Awfold’s Neighbourhood Plan?




Left Councillor Kevin Deanus joins villagers to protest against the Springbok application – has the councillor who has fought development changed his mind? Has the Alfold Bobby’s tirade stopped the creation of Alfold New Town?

As if it hadn’t enough on its hands fighting the Dunsfold Park developer, the mutter in the Awfold gutter is that Protect our Little Corner is making a takeover bid for Awfold’s Neighbourhood Plan… and soon its parish council!

 Great, they’re going to stop development in Awfold, we hear you cry. And not before time! Finally, they’re taking an interest in somewhere other than Dunsfold Aerodrome. Well done, POW, you’re finally living up to your name!

Well, er …, no, not exactly! According to our informants – and they are many! – POW is planning to concrete all over Awfold’s green and pleasant fields in its latest bid to stop development just a hop, skip and a field away at Dunsfold Aerodrome, the largest brownfield site in the borough.


You couldn’t make it up, really you couldn’t! A scheme that was turned down at Appeal by a Government Inspector earlier this year is, only months later, is now being promoted by the Neighbourhood Plan Committee.

WTF is going on in Awfold, we hear you ask? Awfold residents could not have made it clearer how they felt about Thakeham Homes’ Springbok application – when they turned out in their droves to give it a big, huge thumbs down – but Thakeham’s supporters are determined to get the development back on the agenda.

Are Thakeham’s supporters now promoting another of its cunning plans?

You might well ask! Of course, everyone knows Nik Pigeon, Chairman of Awfold Parish Council, has declared a pecuniary interest in the Springbok scheme but, according to our informants – who have been busy trawling through Awfold Parish Council’s parish papers, following recent, startling revelations about the Parish Council’s money-laundering activities – piles of dodgy do-do are being uncovered. One of which whiffs to high heaven!

Apparently, in April this year, up popped POW’s very own slippery little hypocrite  Chris Britton, who, together with  his wife Cilla, now sit on Awfold’s Neighbourhood Plan Committee

So why would someone who lives in a house overlooking Dunsfold Aerodrome whose been fighting the Dunsfold Developer tooth-and-nail, to prevent development on his doorstep, want to team up with another developer to help them build homes just a hop, skip and a field away on the other side of the aerodrome on someone else’s doorstep? It really does beg the question what’s in it for him?

In fact, call us stupid but the Waverley Web, can’t understand why anyone is calling for more sites for development  there because the village only has to find 125 homes to comply with Your Waverley’s Local Plan and it already has:

• 55 consented – and going up fast – at Sweeters Copse as part of Phase 1, with further homes in the pipeline for Phase 2;
• 23 consented at Brockhurst Farm on the Horsham Road;
• 57?  at the former Wyevale Garden Centre, where consent has already been granted for part of the site and a new application is seeking to increase that number;
• 11 at Oakhurst Farm (SCC) 
• Not to mention numerous conversions of barns and outbuildings – including at the Alfold Craft Centre, and a number of individual new homes – all of which are described as ‘windfall’ sites!

So, without even trying, Awfold has already exceeded the 125 homes it needs by over a fifth and yet POW’s Boy Britton is busy promoting other schemes including at Springbok, owned by Care Ashore, or as some believe Thakeham Homes?

In addition, as part of the call for sites, numerous other Alfold landowners – most of whom objected to development at Dunsfold Aerodrome,  – have rushed to throw their land into the hat, including Care Ashore’s land south of Satchel Court Drive; The Nutshell, Horsham Road; Glebelands Farm, Loxwood Road; land at the entrance to Wildwood Golf Club; Bridian Farm, Little Bookers Lea Farm, to name but a few.

Carry on at this rate and Awfold’s green and pleasant fields will quickly become Awfold New Town whilst, next door, the largest brownfield site in the borough sits idle if POW’s Boy Britton has anything to do with it. What a treacherous little Weasel he is!

Care Ashore and Thakeham Homes’ boat sunk by a Government Inspector!

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 19.00.42.png

Another shedload of homes on their way to the countryside in Alfold – adjacent to Dunsfold Airfield.

Don’t Panic Mr Mainwaring! It’s only Awfoldgate again…


Follow me, ​Follows.


There’s no doubt about it Waverley Town and Borough Councillor Paul Follows is certainly keeping his finger on Godalming’s pulse.  The town’s new boy is digging deep into development plans which could have a huge impact on the town’s future. We are sure others are doing the same -but are not quite so vocal? So the WW will go with the man who has his fingers on the keyboard.

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 10.01.15.png

Here’s what is being proposed now that ‘Your Waverley” is rolling back the Green Belt around Godalming.

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 10.00.41.png


Two of the main concerns that have been raised by residents so far have been regarding traffic and the environment.

Paul’s view:

Screen Shot 2018-10-20 at 10.00.20.png

The application (on the Waverley planning portal) has now had two important comments logged against it – one from Natural England and one from Surrey Highways.


NE has in this case requested some more information about some of the protected animal and plant species that may be present: read its full comments here:



SH has commented upon the methodology the applicant has employed, the mitigations proposed and other related matters and a number of other areas. It’s a bit of read but I really would welcome any comments on this.


Last week along with other Waverley councillors he attended a session with Ashill,  (the developer) Surrey Highways and other Waverley Councillors to informally discuss the application – so Paul welcomes any general queries. 

He was also a guest of Witley Parish Council (also discussing the application and the potential impact upon their area).

Oh Boy – Waverley’s new boy, certainly gets around!

Happy to discuss on here or at Paul.follows@waverley.gov.uk

Don’t Panic​ Mr Mainwaring! It’s only Awfoldgate again…


unexplained_wealthAlfold Parish Council had a rude awakening this week. The usually sleepy parish which allows its Councillors to do pretty much what they like when they like, how they like, was called to account when one of its residents spotted that over a quarter of a million pounds had flowed through its bank account. Yep, you did read that right – a QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS!

Unsurprisingly, that gentlemen nearly choked on his cornflakes and uttered an Anglo Saxon expletive that we’re too mealy-mouthed to repeat here. Intrigued, we asked someone over there to investigate, which they duly did, and we posted their findings. After all, despite the alleged disdain with which the Waverley Web is held by the local establishment – by which we mean the Tory Party, Waverley Borough Council and the uptight Parish Councillors – we know damn well they all read us. The proof is in the pudding and our ratings shot through the roof during Awfold-Gate!

Oh boy, did we hit a nerve? Nic Pigeon – the chairman and local lawyer  – was on the phone to the Parish Clerk quicker than a rat up a drain pipe. Sadly, unlike the FBI, WW can’t tap phones, so we’ve made do with our fertile imaginations – believing the conversation went something like this:

Pigeon: Now pay attention, Beverley! We’re in, potentially, deep do-do over our love-in with POW and the other Parishes. Not that we did anything illegal, you understand, but, let’s face it, Capt’n Bob and the Boy Britten aren’t too popular with the Waverley Web and, somehow, they’ve managed to make them the laughing stock of the Borough. God knows how but we don’t want that happening to us. Mrs P would fall off her horse- and then we might have to give up our Springbok land.

Bev: ‘Oh, I wouldn’t go that far. I’m sure no one takes the Waverley Web seriously …’

Pigeon: ‘Are you mad, woman? Of course, people take it seriously! Even Julia Potts has been overheard admitting she reads the Waverley Web. WBC doesn’t bother issuing internal memos now – it’s a waste of time – because the Waverley Web knows what’s going on at the Burys before they do! We have to nip this in the bud and fast!’ Before they start looking at the VAT returns!

Bev: ‘That’s a shame. I’ve had several compliments from friends who’ve seen my picture on the Waverley Web.


Oh, I know it’s not like being on the front cover of Vogue but, you have to admit, you’re no one in Waverley if you don’t get a mention on the Waverley Web. I’m quite enjoying my 15 minutes of fame and …’

Pigeon: ‘Dear God! Get a grip, woman! soon you’ll be suggesting I ring up and offer to pose for an official photograph to go with their next article!’

Bev:  Actually, a good idea. If you submit your own photos you could airbrush out the bits you don’t like. They managed a very flattering photo of me (thank God they didn’t find the one of me with my trousers rolled up, paddling, at West Wittering. 

Pigeon:  Never mind West Wittering. Stop wittering and CONCENTRATE! We need to think …  come to think of it you might just be on to something! That’s just what we need to do. I take it all back. You’re a genius! We need to start wittering. Take a letter, Beverley, we’re  writing to the Waverley Web …’

Bev: What?  Betty won’t like it …’

Pigeon: ‘Bugger Betty! Well, not literally, of course … God, perish the thought!’

Bev: ‘You cannot be serious?’

Pigeon: ‘What? About Betty? Of course not!’

Bev: ‘No, not about Betty. About writing to the Waverley Web!’

Pigeon:  I never thought those words would pass my lips, but, I’m afraid, we need to hold our noses and just do it. This is about damage limitation and the only way out of this is to offer a carefully choreographed explanation.  I know we don’t consider ourselves accountable to anyone but, sadly, the days of what goes on in the Parish Council stays in the Parish Council are long gone. Nowadays, what goes on in the Parish Council goes on the Waverley Web and what goes on the Waverley Web ends up on Facebook and Twitter! Their reach is … well, let’s just say it’s far-reaching. 

Why else do you think Groucho Ground retired and went to work for POW? Why do you think I’m retiring? Just you wait, Charles Orange The Big D’s final stretch.   will be the next one stepping down, mark my words. He’s never been the same, you know, not since they outed him as an out-of-town developer … And, no, I didn’t know about that. I must say he kept it very quiet – very, very quiet – but then, of course, he would. Not that I blame him, anyone would. Development’s a dirty word around here! You can be a developer’s solicitor, his accountant, his bank manager, his planner even … but you can’t actually be a developer! That really is social death! Unless, of course, you’re really, really, really successful and you do it in someone else’s backyard. It doesn’t do to dump on your own doorstep! That’s bad form. So,. Let’s put our heads together and see what face-saving narrative we can come up with for laundering all that cash for POW. Pity we didn’t let one of the other Parishes do it but it seemed like such a good wheeze at the time …’

Screen Shot 2018-10-17 at 15.10.41

PS. Has anyone else noted that the Parish Council’s website is now, suddenly, bang up to date, with even draft Minutes being posted? Now there’s a first and, if nothing else, maybe they’ll be a little less complacent going forward.

Charterhouse headmaster meets​ Old Boy MP jockeying into position to be the next Prime Minister?


For MPs, a Friday is Constituency Day – a chance to reacquaint themselves with whatever rotten borough lent them their seat. So on Friday our MP tweeted he had met his favourite developer – his alma mater.


Having had a briefing from some worried Tory Councillors about restless locals, he hurried down to The Ming to get first dibs on the upcoming offer. Its a shame he didn’t have time to meet with the local ‘Broom and Lee – Keep Charterhouse Green Belt Greens’ campaign group at the same time.

You may think that’s strange, however, the Waverley Web couldn’t possibly comment.




It’s  all kicking off in Alfold as news of the Parish Council’s unexpected windfall – of £276,400 – and subsequent spending spree – of the same – began to spread like wildfire around the village and the phrase, ‘WTF?’ went viral as residents across the borough, not just in Alfold, began to ask what on earth had been going on in not so sleepy Alfold (population circa 1000)?

Here at the Waverley Web, our inbox hasn’t stopped pinging. Many of the postings have been unprintable and speculation is rife about what exactly Alfold Parish Councillors have been up to, under the aegis of outgoing Chairman Nik Pigeon and Clerk Beverly Weddell.

The Waverley Web doesn’t know but the rumour mill has gone into overdrive and it isn’t just Alfold residents who are demanding an explanation.

Several correspondents have speculated that Crystal Tipps Weddell, who is up to her ringlets in Protect our Little Corner, has been laundering donations for the organisation through the Parish Council.

Assuming that is the case, Why can’t POW manage its own dirty linen? is a question that many people are asking.


Others are surmising that POW, with the connivance of Alfold Parish Council and, in particular, Crystal Tipps Weddell might be concealing the true extent of its financial resources in order to improve its chances of securing protection from the costs of its High Court Challenge to Waverley Borough Council, the Secretary of State and the Dunsfold Developer. All under something called the Aarhus Convention.

We understand POW has been pleading poverty claiming  to have only pennies in its bank account –  which even the High Court Judge found less than credible – but if they’ve been ‘laundering’ their cash through the Parish Council’s bank account that would go a long way to explaining the, to-date, inexplicable paucity of their own bank account!

Is anyone going to inform the Judge of this latest development in POW’s financial affairs? Cue Julia Potts, Daniel Bainbridge, Tom Horwood, the Dunsfold Developer, the Secretary of State … Hello? Is anyone out there watching and listening to what’s going on under their noses?

The Waverley Web is no expert on the affairs – financial or otherwise – of Parish Councils but, helpfully, one of our readers is and she provided the following explanatory note for us:

‘I do know a thing or two about parish council finance and think this is worrying. I’ve had a little look at the APC website and I can tell you what is missing! The external auditor’s report has not been published – and the law requires that that should have been placed on the parish council’s website by 30 September. It is possible that the external auditor has not yet reported – the external auditor appointed to cover Surrey parishes has struggled with workload this year and some reports have been delayed (although I would have expected to see something to this effect published on the APC website by 30 September). The external auditor checks variances between years and asks for an explanation of significant differences – I’d love to see the explanation given here. I wonder how long it will be before the external audit report appears here with the rest of the annual accounts information? http://www.alfold.org/page12.html

So our question – and that of many other Waverley residents – is: Where is the external auditor’s report?

And, whilst we’re on the subject, a lot of people think Chairman Pigeon and Clerk Weddell have some explaining to do!

Rumours abound in the Alfold Barn and The Compasses, that Nik Pigeon is standing down as Chairman of Alfold Parish Council – before he’s pushed? – and Chris Britton (Cap’n Bob’s No2 at Protect our Little Corner) is going to be catapulted into his place.

What? WHAT? WHAT? we hear you say ... Well, it is only a rumour and we’d given it little credence to date – after all, what Parish Council in its right mind would elect a Chairman who hadn’t served a day, let alone six months as a Parish Councillor, in order to learn the ropes? But the mutter in the Alfold gutter is that Thakeham Homes – which may or may not have been contributing to POW’s coffers – is simply waiting for POW to get the Dunsfold Park decision thrown out by the High Court, before resuscitating its own application at Springbok. The plan, so we’ve been told, is to dust down the Springbok application and slap it in with slightly fewer homes, safe in the knowledge that if Waverley’s Local Plan goes down and the Dunsfold development with it, there will be a window of opportunity for other developers to fill the void and concrete over everywhere but the biggest brownfield site in the borough.

But of course, others may think that. The Waverley Web couldn’t-possibly comment. 

Nik Pigeon, who has previously admitted to a pecuniary interest in relation to the Springbok application, is thought to have been in favour of the scheme from the get-go and Chris Britton is happy to build anywhere in the Borough, absolutely anywhere, except at Dunsfold Aerodrome because his home, in Hall Place, overlooks the airfield. Poor old Awfold, talk about going from the frying pan into the fire … when it comes to Parish Council Chairman they’ve really hit bottom and yet, still they keep on digging!

So, there you have it, folks, another everyday tale of Country Folk … or do we mean Skullduggery in the Shires?

Watch this space for further developments (no pun intended!) and, in between times, keep checking the Awfold Parish Council website for the External Auditor’s Report.

A view from the gallery.


Unlike Waverley Web’s view from the rafters of The High Court of Justices – here’s…



Waverley Councillor Paul Follows said. “Something I am keen to do is try to bring some of these detailed but important subjects (that are often kept behind closed doors and not really discussed in public) into the open a bit more (so people are aware and can engage with them).”
I spent two days this week in the High Court observing Waverley and others (including Dunsfold Aerodrome Limited – (DAL) and the Secretary of State for Local Government and Housing) defending themselves against the challenges of CPRE (Campaign for the Protection of Rural England) and POW (Protect our Waverley).
In the gallery were a number of interested parties, but in terms of Councillors, the Conservative Leader and Deputy Leader of the Council were present for both days – plus me representing the Opposition at Waverley.

I urge anyone associated with the groups involved to correct me if I have misunderstood or misrepresented the arguments they presented. I may be guilty of over-simplifying things and I am not speaking on behalf of any of the groups involved – or even Waverley (as I am an Opposition councillor).
There is also A LOT of emotive history on this controversial issue – which as a new (ish) councillor I have not been involved, and probably I am unaware of some of the issues – so I will attempt to present this as a neutral account so far as I can.
on one ‘side,’ you have POW and CPRE.
POW is challenging the very existence of the Dunsfold site allocation of (2600)homes,  1,800 of which are consented, on a brownfield aerodrome, both included in the Local Plan). Their argument seemed to be based on a combination of the assessment of housing need and general issues about the site itself and the impact it would have.
CPRE seem to be arguing that the Local Plan (as currently passed) which includes the major modifications required by the Planning Inspector (Jonathon Bore) is subject to challenge because of the inclusion of part of Woking’s ‘unmet housing need.’ The basis, of which, they argue – is questionable and claim it was arbitrarily applied 50/50 to Waverley and to Guildford.
This increased the numbers that Waverley has to provide per year in the local plan and to meet that new number Waverley has added two new sites to the plan (both of which require their removal from Green Belt. One of which is in my  Godalming ward). They also challenged the evidence base regarding housing need – a subject I am interested in.

…And on the other ‘side’ – Waverley’s lawyer + the lawyers representing (DAL) and the secretary of state was defending a combination of some or all of the above.

I believe POW struggled to make its case to support its argument. Some of which couldn’t be made without rehashing the (already concluded and failed) Judicial Review (JR) of the Dunsfold application and decision. So it relied on housing numbers and Woking’s unmet need. From what I can see, up to 2600 houses were allocated in the local plan prior to the inspectors’ modifications – and the only change afterwards was the dropping of the words ‘up to’. I believe the planning application already allowed 2600 at this point anyway.
CPRE however made (…eventually…I’m afraid their case took their counsel some time to deliver) a more persuasive argument about the input from the Inspector.
in part because Its argument is not a million miles away from the arguments that I made at the local plan vote back at the start of the year (and in part why I didn’t vote for the plan). As I did – they take issue with the idea of taking the ‘unmet need’ from Woking – and they take issue with both the concept of why Waverley should take it AND how it was calculated. There is no way I can adequately or concisely go into the detail of their argument on the calculations (it took the best part of half a day for it to be put across).
The critical point here though is that CPRE were not wholly reliant upon Dunsfold to demonstrate changes and harm from the modifications to the local plan – the Green Belt sites in Binscombe and Aarons Hill were totally new and only added by the Inspector and as a direct result of the changes). To put it simply – they argue the inspector made an error with Woking’s unmet need and the evidence base for housing need – therefore leading to a local plan that is unsound.

Waverley and others sought to refute these points. On the Dunsfold matter – if the site were taken out of the local plan, as POW want – the housing numbers in the plan would still exist. Whatever the merits or demerits of that application – sites for 2600 houses would need to then be found in the Borough. It is such a strategic plank of the local plan – the consequences would be severe.

 I want to understand from these groups the nature of their objections – and I hope you contact me and give me an idea. Certainly, I am aware of the transport issues – but I would love to know more and some of the history. But I do understand the potential consequences to everywhere else if Dunsfold is removed from the plan?
With regards to CPRE.  The court discussed possible methods for which ‘relief’ could be offered (what could be done) if the CPRE arguments were substantiated. This could involve the court directing the numbers to be changed, sites being removed – or even the outright quashing of the local plan entirely. I think these outcomes though are ultimately quite unlikely.
It is yet to be determined (the judge will not actually rule for some time) if those arguments will be upheld and if Waverley should or should not have defended some of this. We know £300k was allocated for the defence.
Happy to answer any questions – if you got this far – thank you for reading!

Follow the money?



One way or another, I’m gonna getcha? 


It began so well. On the second day of the High Court Hearing into CPRE / POW’s challenge to the Secretary of State, Waverley Borough Council and the Dunsfold Developer, Julia Potts went from fabulous to fishnets.

Of course, there were fewer bums on seats in the public gallery – having turned out to cheer on team POW on day one, POW’s supporters didn’t bother turning up. Why would they? They’ve never been interested in listening to anyone’s arguments but their own.

Despite eloquent counter arguments from Wayne Beglan, on behalf of Waverley BC, David Elvin, for the Dunsfold Developer, and the Secretary of State’s barrister, the Judge appeared sympathetic to poor little David’s fight against Goliath. Yes, things appeared to be going swimmingly for Capt’n Bob and Co. 

Here the WW want to make something clear. We have never opposed residents’ right to challenge. In fact, we have applauded that right. However,  we believe in honesty. This protest group was set up for one purpose and one purpose only – to Dump Development at Dunsfold. Nothing else. If POW cannot tell the truth – others will tell it for you. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of OUR money, has been spent by 11 parish councils,  some even from across the Surrey/Sussex border.

Did anyone ask YOU?

Which takes us back to yesterday’s hearing when the Judge turned her attention to the Aarhus Convention (The public’s right to justice which limits costs to just £10,000). POW’s barrister only just stopped short of pulling out his violin as he painted a picture of brave little David’s hand-to-mouth existence, passing round the begging-bowl every time they needed to mount yet another challenge against the Big Bad Developer and Wolfish Waverley, neither of whom gave a fig for local residents, both of whom were only interested in concreting over a big brownfield site to the detriment of all those living nearby.

Smiling graciously, The High Court Judge looked sincere and almost reached for her handkerchief. 

Capt’n Bob Lies and Boy Britten’s fizzogs were wearing huge smiles clearly believing they were home and dry on the costs front whilst, in the public gallery,  La Potts and Ged Hall gnashed their teeth.

And then a miracle happened. The Dunsfold Developer’s junior brief leapt up and with a few well-placed words turned the tide.  Mr Turney said POW was a single-interest group that, despite pleading poverty, had been successfully raising huge sums of money in order to fight/stop any development at Dunsfold Park at every turn. He strongly suspected POW was a front for a few “high net worth individuals” who had promised to cough-up whatever it took to stop the Dunsfold development in its tracks while underwriting the whole shebang. Mr Turney’s prose was far more elegant than ours and issued in a mellifluous tone that, whilst soothing, held just the right degree of indignation to get the Judge’s attention.

The Judge said she couldn’t help but agree with Mr Turney’s assertion – backed up by Mr Beglan on behalf of his client – that there was a lack of transparency on POW’s part about where their financial resources were coming from? Looked suitably pained, PoW’s barrister said the Judge couldn’t be suggesting that poor little David was trying to hide anything? POW simply lurched from one fundraising event to the next, raising dribs and drabs, against all the odds, as the need arose.

M T. was having none of it saying POW had raised vast sums in order to mount a challenge at the Public Inquiry. It was then the Judge’s sympathy began to wane and Capt’n Bob’s smile evaporated like Scotch mist when she said she was leaning towards proposing full disclosure from POW in relation to their funding sources. PoW co-ordinators Chris Britton and Alan Ground looked fit for the ground to swallow them. 

PoW’s Rumpole appealed again, surely not, the Judge couldn’t really mean it! But Mr Turney had shone a light on POW’s dirty little secret, revealing not the slightly dented, second-hand petty cash tin they claimed to keep their sparse funds in but a dirty great safety deposit box full of filthy lucre!

Apparently, they weren’t counting Doris’s pennies; why would they when, as Mr Turney disclosed, a small group of wealthy well-wishers were writing gold-plated cheques to the tune of £15,000 – £20,000 a pop with a flourish of their Mont Blancs!

 Whose to say same wealthy donors hadn’t egged POW on, agreeing to underwrite all their costs, whilst, at the same time, urging them to try to gain protection from Aahrus thus ensuring that the Waverley Tax Payer ended up footing the bill for POW’s largesse?

Mr Turney didn’t allude to it but the mutter in the Waverley gutter, which has been gaining momentum in recent weeks, reveals at least one devious developer is bank-rolling POW in order to stop development at Dunsfold Park to give his own sites, elsewhere in the Borough, a better chance of succeeding. A strategy right up POW’s lane as they don’t care what’s developed elsewhere in the Borough as long as it’s not on their doorstep!

And isn’t that’s exactly what happened in the case of Mr & Mrs House over at Milford? Their challenge, which was thrown out at the first hurdle, was funded by a developer eager to build in Godalming!

Against a background of excited chatter from the public gallery and red faces in POW’s camp, the Judge instructed the POW’s Rumpole that his clients had seven days in which to provide a full witness statement in relation to their funding arrangements/donations going back to the publication of Inspector Bore’s report. 

In the meantime, our advice to Dear Doris. Save your pennies for POW has no need of them. You and any other unsuspecting pensioner who’s donated precious funds they can ill afford have been deceived.

POW’s is a front for some serious High Rollers who don’t want development on their doorsteps but on someone else’s and are hellbent on ensuring it goes anywhere but Dunsfold and at taxpayer’s expense!  

In the meantime, we at the Waverley Web look forward to seeing how the Sorry Advertiser –  report The Great Dunsfold Dust Off.  Whose own High Roller boss lives on the boundary of Dunsfold Aerodrome  A “high worth’ individual who just happens to live so near he could spit at the airfield from his £8m and reducing, country pile.

Alfold Parish Council couldn’t possibly be acting as Banker – could it? No, not really, never?

We’re in the (unexplained) money!!