A message to Cranleigh people from Margi…


The WW has received literally hundreds of messages and comments from people living over there in the eastern villages of Waverley. Lack of space prevents us from including all your comments on our posts.

CVHT - driving a split in Cranleigh
Margi Plank

You may have seen many posts on our various groups pertaining to the planning application by the Cranleigh Village health Trust (CVHT) for a private Care Home and block of flats. All on a small area of land behind Marks and Spencer’s car park and a small residential area of private homes?

There are many private residents against this development. At least 4,600 minimum to be exact.

Another petition has just been launched. https://.www.change.org/campaigngroup


“There are a few of us that are spokespeople passing on information and comments on behalf of these dissenters as best we can.
We have been blocked by the Admin of any group that is either in the employ of the CVHT or are actually part of the Trust themselves i.e. Trustees or those with a vested interest.
We are asking for this planning application to be deferred until a public meeting can be held so that CVHT can answer all the questions that remain unanswered.
Villagers raised the sum of £1.8m towards a new hospital for the villages in and around Cranleigh nearly 20 years ago and the money has all but disappeared down a black hole and the plan has morphed into a private care home for the elderly to serve the whole of Surrey. Users of the home’s services will be financially assessed in the usual way.
It has turned out that many of the statements made by the Trust may only become a part reality if planning permission is granted. However, there is no agreed partnership with the Care Home Company so no reality there!”
Many, many questions were unanswered.
  • Where has the money gone?
  • Why did land have to be swapped?
  • Where is the money coming from to build the Care Home and flats if their so-called ”partner” reneges on any verbal agreement – particularly as the company in question (HC-One) is millions of pounds in debt but still paying shareholders many millions in dividends?
  • This is a Care Home, the beds of which are for anyone in the county – and they won’t necessarily be free at the point of entry; the FAQs state “After initial assessment some patients will need to self pay”.
What is being sold to the public are free community hospital beds when this is not the case at all.
We have ascertained from experts that the beds are: “Continuing care beds for elderly or disabled people – for the rest of their lives.” Not for post-operative care as claimed by a Cranleigh parish councillor Richard Cole – or young mums with children, as claimed by Cllr Rosemary Burbridge! They too – are being misled!
Many statements are being made by the Trust’s PR spokesman under the headings Myth and Reality – most of these statements are untrue and are accusing innocent members of the genuinely concerned public of telling lies.
IT IS THEREFORE IMPERATIVE THAT FACTS HAVE GOT TO BE ESTABLISHED before any planning application is considered.
Please all remember!  The money raised was not out of a large developers coffers. It was raised by the villagers. Men, women and young children.   They need and deserve the truth.
It was also our land that was squirrelled away for it! Sold for £1.
If you would like to read the letters of support and objection, please go to Waverley Planning Applications
No.WA/2020/0965 these will give you a background of what has taken place over the years. 
And STILL, the support letters rolling in are trying to convince people it’s a HOSPITAL and will save them a trip to Guildford RSCH, even the landowner involved in the land swap!
When is the CVHT going come clean and state that the planning application is for a PRIVATE CARE HOME which will NOT be facilitating hospital treatment, so, therefore, will NOT save you a trip to Guildford?
Also, there is a large percentage of these support letters are coming from way out of the area, even hundreds of miles away. Only a handful mention having a relative living in the Cranfold area, so it begs the question WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE DELIGHTED TO KNOW A PRIVATE CARE HOME IS PROPOSED FOR CRANLEIGH. CVHT has obviously scoured the country for support for this.
We have received very few letters of objection from people out of the area but these include a former Cranleigh GP who was practising at our medical centre at the time of raising money and people themselves who actually donated and do not want their money spent on building a private care home. Other former GP’s have also objected.

Ruth Turner

Ash Barn, Church Lane, Monyash,

Derbyshire, DE45 1JH

When I first joined Cranleigh Medical Practice as a partner in 2002 the project to build a replacement health centre and village hospital was in progress. Initially, this seemed to me like a good idea. The old health centre and the wards in the village hospital were dilapidated, and there was great support for the project from the community. Indeed, a very large amount of money was raised by CVHT from the people of Cranleigh for it. At the heart of the project was the desire to replace the community beds which were under threat and subsequently closed by NHS Surrey.

However, five years ago, whilst I was still a partner at Cranleigh Medical Practice, there was no model of care agreed for the 16 community beds in the private nursing home (which the original replacement village hospital has now turned into) and I gather that this remains the case today. In my view, this is a fatal flaw for the project because, as we always used to say, you can stick a sign on the door which says “community beds”, but if there is no model of care and no secure funding stream agreed to utilize these beds, then these are just words. In which case the plans must surely be solely for a private nursing home. The original outline planning permission was granted for a replacement village hospital, not a nursing home. I would argue that another private nursing home is not needed in Cranleigh which is already a net importer of patients requiring private nursing home care. A fact which clearly demonstrates existing oversupply.

The twists and turns in the saga of this project caused me sleepless nights whilst I was working in Cranleigh because the original idea of community beds was attractive, but the many incarnations have all had the same fundamental problem. A private nursing home can make money if it’s big enough (clearly topping up the numbers with another 16 paying patients would help this equation), but genuine free at the point of delivery community beds are a massively expensive luxury, which I suspect renders them unaffordable in this setting. To me then, this has become another commercial private nursing home project which is why I object to the plans.


Charity bike ride on the Downslink ends in tragedy.


Anyone who drives this stretch of the A281 – as reported on Facebook – knows it is THE worst signposted road junction with the Downslink, which is so popular with cyclists. 


A cyclist who died in a Rudgwick collision has been formally identified.

Around 10.45am on Wednesday, 22 July, police responded to reports of a road traffic collision involving a cyclist and a Renault HGV tipper lorry on the A281 Guildford Road, Rudgwick.

Despite the best efforts of the emergency services, 20-year-old Pathushan Sutharsan died at the scene.

Pathushan, known as Pathu, was taking part in a 120km charity bike ride for Yemen when the collision occurred.

His family have issued the following tribute: “Pathu was a compassionate, sensitive, generous and creative person who always had a positive outlook. He had a life board in his bedroom where he would write down all of his dreams and aspirations.

“Pathu was in his second year studying architecture at Brighton University, due to start his third year in September and was a very dedicated student.

“His passions were photography and singing; he had a music studio as his home in Morden, South London, which he was very proud of. Pathu was also very interested in You Tube and wanted to capture real life situations via his podcasts.

“Pathu was always thinking of others and this bike ride was no different. Although Hindu, he was participating in the charity ride to assist Muslims in the Yemen.

“One of Pathu’s mantras in life included: ‘Will you be proud of the things you have done?’ 

“Well, us and his friends, although devastated by our loss, are proud that Pathu passed away trying to save the lives of so many people.”

His secondary school headmaster, Mr Bean of WCGS said on behalf of all staff at the school: “Pathu was a much-loved student and studied art, chemistry and maths at A Level. He was a very talented musician, often found in the main hall playing the piano and led Radcliffe as house captain with passion and creativity. He will be sorely missed by all who knew him.”

Pathu’s Just Giving page for his charity ride has now raised more than £15,000.  Let’s give it a boost – and let us all call for proper signage both on the Downslink and the A281 warning the thousands of HGV drivers and cyclists of the hazards ahead?

Police continue to appeal for anyone who witnessed the collision or who has dash cam footage to make contact with them. You can report information online or by calling 101 quoting Operation Oakford.

‘Bob The Builder’ Jenrick keeps Shtum on unbuilt homes?


When the BBC asked ‘Bob The Builder’ Jenrick today what he intended to do about the 1m homes already consented but not built,  he stayed Shtum.

Now we ask MP’s Jeremy Hunt and Angela Richardson? Do you also intend to stay silent on the subject? If so, WHY? Because many of those consented homes are in Waverley, and on your patch!

And Angie’s patch is under threat because Surrey County Council has its beady eye on Cranleigh!  If The Government gets its way, which it will – Cranleigh’s floodgates will literally, be opened. Now, look at Surrey County Council’s cunning plan for ‘Your Waverley’s’ eastern villages.

More than a million homes granted planning permission in the past decade have not yet been built, according to new analysis by the Local Government Association.

It is time to make developers pay for delays.


Screen Shot 2020-08-06 at 10.24.14.png

This is more likely to be the reason why 1m homes remain unbuilt? Many developers are asking to reduce the number of affordable homes too!

Latest figures show that 2,564,600 units have been granted planning permission by councils since 2009/10 while only 1,530,680 have been completed.

The number of planning permissions granted for new homes has almost doubled since 2012/13 with councils approving 9 in 10 applications. But according to ‘Bob’ that’s not enough and great swathes of the countryside must now go under concrete, to provide jobs for the building industry?

While in some cases there is  a time lag between permission being granted and homes being built, new build completions have only increased by half as much in that time. 

Alongside the Government, councils have recognised the shortage of housing and the need to build more homes.

In Waverley’s case thousands of new homes have been consented and one major new garden village on a brownfield site at Dunsfold aerodrome. where 2,600 new homes are planned. 

However, the backlog of unbuilt homes shows the planning system is not a barrier to house building. The Local Government Association has called  on the Government to use its  planning white paper to give councils powers to take action on unbuilt land which has planning permission.

This includes making it easier to compulsory purchase land where homes remain unbuilt, and to be able to charge developers full council tax for every unbuilt development from the point that the original planning permission expires.

With the right powers and funding, the LGA said councils can play a leading role in helping the Government tackle the national housing shortage.

As part of its submission to the Treasury ahead of next month’s Budget, the LGA is also calling for the Government to reform Right to Buy, by allowing councils to keep all of the receipts of homes sold under RTB to replace them and to have the flexibility to set discounts locally.

Cllr David Renard, LGA housing spokesman, said:

“The planning system is not a barrier to house building. The number of homes granted planning permission has far outpaced the number of homes being built.

”No-one can live in a planning permission, or a half-built house where work on a site has begun but not been completed.

“Councils need powers to tackle our housing backlog and step in where a site with planning permission lies dormant and house building has stalled.

“If we are to solve our housing shortage, councils need to be able to get building again and resume their role as major builders of affordable homes.

“It is also vital that the planning process is protected, so that councils and communities can ensure we realise the Government’s ambition of building beautiful homes, which includes the necessary infrastructure and affordable housing.”


The figures analysed by the LGA are government data available here
Permissions and completions












Planning Permissions (units)

























Surrey Dummies forced to do a Dun – re-run!


Dunsfold drilling plans to be decided again after refusal ruled “invalid”

Remember guys and gals, this is the same outfit that wants to become your Unitary Authority and make all our decisions!

Bye Bye ‘Your Waverley’ Hello ‘Surrey?’


The decision to refuse planning permission for oil and gas exploration in  Dunsfold has been ruled invalid following problems during a “remote” council meeting. You can read how the Waverley Web predicted – trouble ahead – here…UK Oil & Gas application in Dunsfold – Refused…for now?

Five weeks ago, councillors voted by six votes to five against plans by UK Oil & Gas plc (UKOG) to drill and test vertical and sidetrack wells, despite council planning officers’ recommendation to approve.

The meeting was the first remote session of the committee, where members took part by video link from home.

The live feed of the meeting repeatedly dropped out and one member of the committee could not be heard.

The application will now be brought back to a future meeting of the planning committee – probably on 17 September – to be decided again

 Surrey’s monitoring officer, Paul Evans, said there was:

“a significant likelihood that the irregularities arising from the technical difficulties at the meeting on 29 June 2020 render the resolution to refuse invalid and would render any notice of refusal unlawful.

“The most appropriate and fairest course of action is to take the application back to committee. This is what the Council has decided to do. “In the circumstances the Council will in due course resubmit the application to the Planning and Regulatory Committee to be redetermined afresh with full entitlement given to members of the public and the applicant to make or remake their statements orally and with full provision for debate by members.”

A spokesperson for UKOG said:

“We welcome the chance to restate why the low-impact Loxley project is of material local and national economic importance, is fully compliant with Net Zero, and presents minimal local business, local highway and environmental impacts.

“We trust that the 17 September re-run will result in a decision fully commensurate with the facts presented, natural law and fair democratic process.”

A spokesperson for Protect Dunsfold, which opposes UKOG’s plans, said:

“Obviously we would prefer that this decision had stood but it is clear from the statement issued by Surrey that this has been referred back on legal advice because of technical problems on the day.

“We have every reason to expect that the Committee reaches the same decision for the same planning policy reasons when it is referred back to Committee and we see no reason why it shouldn’t do so.”

200513 View from site to High Billinghurst Farm 2


UK Oil & Gas plc complained that there had been deficiencies in the decision-making process and asked for the application to be redetermined. DrillOrDrop understands there were also complaints from members of the public.

The complaints included:

  • The live stream of the meeting dropped out
  • Part of a speech by a councillor in favour of the plans may not have been heard by participants
  • A councillor speaking in favour may not have been heard by another councillor who was “waiting in the lobby” to access the meeting
  • A councillor could not be heard and had to use hand gestures and the private chat function to register his vote. He also appeared to be away from this screen at one point during the meeting.
  • Some councillors were helped by people who were not members of the committee

On some of these complaints, the council’s barrister concluded the meeting may have breached regulations:

“these were issues of greater concern, particularly given the close vote by which the resolution was passed.”

Surrey’s planning procedures require committee members to decline to vote unless they were present when an item was discussed. Under the remote meeting regulations, members are not deemed to be present unless they could hear and be heard.

The barrister said:

“There were times during the consideration of the application at the meeting when members would not be considered to be in attendance as a matter of law.”

One councillor may also have been deterred from seeking the opportunity to speak because of problems with the technology.

The barrister concluded:

“there was a significant likelihood that a Court would declare the resolution as invalid and unlawful, not least in light of the clear consequences of the Regulations.”

Other issues raised in complaints were “not necessarily fatal on their own”, the barrister said, but “would not help the impression that would be received if the matter went to Court”.

These included:

  • Lack of a summary of the salient points of the debate before the decision
  • Occasions where other household members appeared on screen with councillors, leading to potential suspicion of inappropriate influence from people not attending the meeting
  • Councillors used a private chat function to pass messages to each other during the meeting

The barrister said:

“Whilst it may well be the case that family members were simply assisting with the technology, there is the risk of a perception of unfairness.”

The investigation dismissed complaints that specific councillors breached the council’s code of conduct and planning protocols. The barrister concluded:

“All issues raised were due to the meeting being undertaken remotely with members being at home in the proximity to other household members to assist in the use of IT equipment or due to technical errors with equipment.

“This was a new experience for members and it is appropriate that if members found themselves in a position where it could appear there were alleged breaches of the code/protocol, that these be addressed with further training in how remote meetings must be conducted rather than any formal investigation.”


Do you remember the ‘Bring Sites’ that were so popular during lockdown?


Screen Shot 2020-08-04 at 09.24.08.png

Well – they are going, going, gone  – according to Your Waverley!

The bins, that were popular receptacles for recycling during lock-down when the borough’s recycling centres were closed, are going. In fact, some have already gone!

The so-called “Bring Sites’ are being phased out as the range of kerbside services widens.

The mixed recycling bins will be removed from bring sites as part of ‘Your Waverley’s plan to phase out the sites and expand the range of materials that are accepted for kerbside collection. It believes this will help to increase recycling and lower Waverley’s carbon footprint.
All the materials currently accepted in the mixed recycling bins are able to be recycled via household collection in existing blue wheelie-bins.
Textiles and electrical equipment will continue to be accepted at the bring sites until this autumn.
Want to do your bit to help? Why not subscribe to the Surrey Environment Partnership YouTube channel for advice on how to #reduce, #reuse and #recycle more 👉 http://orlo.uk/7XPQo

WW cannot help wondering if we will all have to buy even more bins, or will everyone just stick their unwanted stuff in black bags or, even worse fly-tip? Surrey County Council is onto a winner here. It saves shedloads of money by either closing or reducing the opening hours of its CRC sites, and pushes the rubbish down the line to local councils to deal with?

Apparently, bin crews are dealing with much more rubbish – up around 14%. No surprise there then?

We are not eating out, we aren’t in our offices, our children aren’t at school we eat at home. So how do we produce less waste?


Here are  tips on how to reduce, reuse and recycle 👉here http://orlo.uk/EsRrf


It is time to make developers pay for delays.


As Government prepares to open the flood gates to developers – perhaps Bob the Builder Jenrick and his mates Boris the bulldozer and Cummins the? (we will leave a space here for your own personalised description) should look at the one million planning consents not yet implemented?

A day or two ago Cll Liz Townsend referred in the post here to homes consented, but not yet built. We could list a shedload of developments in our borough that remain green fields whilst the same developers say: The fight to stop Surrey County Council’s power grab has begun. If Surrey gets its way for a single Unitary Authority its new growth areas in its 2050 Vision come into play. So here in Farnham and Cranleigh our countryside is under attack! Now, look at Surrey County Council’s cunning plan for ‘Your Waverley’s’ eastern villages and Farnham

Please Sir I want more?


How about, homes consented, but not built after say – three years, -should be long enough for developers to get all their diggers lined up… that they are forced to pay council tax, until they are? This could then be doubled, or even triped the longer the properties remain unbuilt. There is a case here in Farnham with Berkeley Homes. Others in Cranleigh, Godalming and the villages around where sites are surrounded by metal fences to keep wildlife out, or in, as th case may be to keep them in?

‘Your Waverley’ must build homes at the rate included in its Local Plan. If it doesn’t, under Gvernment rules it is not meeting its housing supply. Hence Inspectors then have the opportunity to grant appeal, after appeal.

It appears quite extraordinary to us mere mortals here at the Waverley Web that developers are allowed bank all those consents until they can maximise their profits.

This is not the first time that our MP’s Jeremy Hunt and former MP Anne Milton were reminded of this. Now, perhaps Mr Hunt and Angela Richardson will press for change when the shake-up of planning regulations come into force shortly. Oh! we mustn’t forget the public consultation that comes first – so he who must be obeyed can tell Parliament that the voting fodder have had their say!

We need to get the system changed – and changed now.

In th meantime – don’t let’s blame Waverley for the planning decisions it will be forced to make under the automatic green light for building in the biggest shake-up to hit this country since the second world war!

No more familiar yellow notices on lamp posts, or notices in local papers!   Bob The Builder Jenrick wants us to view them digitally.


We’re on a road to nowhere… if Surrey wins hearts and minds.


As you may be aware in a blatant – rather underhand way the head honchos at Surrey County Council are engaged in a power grab. A grab that could see our county dubbed ‘the biggest single Unitary Authority in Britain’ if not Europe – with a population of 1.2+m.

We have been saying for years here on the Waverley Web that local government reorganisation is long overdue. In 2013 Tory-controlled Waverley pledged it would cut the number of councillors from 57 to 53. Instead, it kept the number at the same level and increased Cllrs allowances by 94%! Has made huge payouts to failing Chief Executives and has invested unwisely here in Farnham.

However, credit it where it’s due in recent years councils, regardless of party, have shared expertise and worked together in a bid to save manpower and money. But, more change is urgently needed particularly post-COVID. But certainly not with the unseemly and ill-thought-out haste currently proposed by our County Leaders.  Pick up 11 borough and district councils, lump them all into a big bag, shake them out… nd up pops a weasel?

Over the coming weeks/months here at the Waverley Web, will highlight some of the awful errors made by Surrey County Council.

Suffice to say – to highlight them all would require a book!

Some glaring examples that stand out among all others are (a) shocking and dangerous road and pavement repairs: Just like these below all taken in ‘Your Waverley.’ A  TV programme on Liverpool revealed that even in a street where houses were being sold for £1 they had better roads and pavements than Surrey.

Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 10.04.44.png


If Local Authorities we’re ranked Surrey would come last. What have the punitively taxed Surrey residents done to deserve such abuse?

Screen Shot 2020-07-30 at 12.04.45.png

Cranleigh High Street – where workmen covered double yellow lines with bituminous macadam.



Yes, council workmen really did such a bad job here that material was flying everywhere. 

Come to Surrey and visit the UK’s capital of potholes​ – on and off-road!

Would you want the same people who repair our roads to run all our services in ‘Your Waverley?

Prompting graphics like this!

Pothole pic Hold on Jack

In a week, or maybe a month or two – after another shedload of ripped tyres and broken axles?

For years Surrey Highways has been operating a ‘tick-box’ exercise when dealing with planning applications. Time and again local councillors, attempt to do their jobs properly armed with in-depth knowledge of local traffic conditions in the areas they represent. Using any highway grounds as an objection means zilch!. Highway concerns are ignored and hey ho, off the developers go.  What do they leave behind? Simples – accidents, near misses and angry and frustrated locals.

Frustrated for being continually ignored – many councillors just give up to spend more with family. A Cllr dubbed ‘the Cranleigh lorry driver’ once pointed out that it would be physically impossible to drive a vehicle without causing huge traffic danger into an Ewhurst development. He said vehicles were too wide for the one-way road and would destroy the hedges and gardens in on neighbours properties. It was approved. They did. No hedges, and series of traffic dangers every day! With mounting incredulity, they ask: How can highway officers’ come to their conclusions when they don’t even visit sites?   Instead, they conduct ‘a desk-top’ exercise and scupper any meaningful decision. A decision which borough’s and districts in Surrey cannot challenge at appeal.

WW believes it should be mandatory for highway officers to visit a site – before putting forward any view. Recently SCC’s planning committee was poised to permit large-scale oil and gas exploration on a site in Dunsfold. A site which councillors had not visited. But would be offered a virtual drone tour of the area. How shambolic is that? Only public protest prevented the hearing. Subsequently, it was refused – but with no highway objection.

UK Oil & Gas application in Dunsfold – Refused…for now?

We could list thousands of cases – East Street, Farnham; Badshot Lea; Ockford Park, Godalming; Milford Golf Course; Amlets Lane; Cranleigh; Cranleigh Rd Ewhurst; Wildwood Lane, Cranleigh the list is endless…

The most recent in Witley:

This week  Cllr Paul Follows and Cllr Maxine Gale drew a line in the sand and deferred an item on Rokes Lane in Witley. They demanded that Surrey Highways come back and review the issues and the consequences of the development on the area – in person – and give a proper comment.

Let’s see how that goes! Well done Cllr Maxine Gale for seconding Cllr Follows’ motion to defer this application which the planning committee then supported. 


So … Cranleigh parish council isn’t happy about the private care home either?


As letters continue to pour in – For and Against CVHT’s latest planning application – villagers have unveiled the man behind the scheme? Watch this space!

Cranleigh Parish Council

So it is not only eastern villages residents who want answers from Cranleigh Village Health Trust  – Cranleigh Parish Council wants answers too!

Here’s a PDF of its actual letter:


 Planning application WA/2020/0965 Erection of a building to provide a 64 bed care home with 16 community beds together with a building to provide 14 health worker accommodation units with access from Knowle Lane, associated parking and ancillary work (revision of WA/2018/1966)

Cranleigh Parish Council logoScreen Shot 2015-12-15 at 23.02.01

• Response as a local authority having regard to the public interest of its parishioners.

 The Parish Council discussed this planning application with the regard to the public interest of its parishioners. Concerns were raised about the benefit of the community beds to the Cranleigh community.

Questions were asked about the exact usage of the beds with regards to care, nursing, Alzheimer’s, post op and/or mother and baby care and how the provision of community beds in the CVHT care home differ in funding and allocation to the provision of NHS/Surrey funded beds in any other care home.

Q The Council would like to know the exact usage of these proposed community beds as this is currently unclear?

Q The Council would also like to know what the exact financial community benefit of the beds is and how this differs to other NHS/Council funded beds and how they would be allocated.

Q The Council also asked for confirmation of how the viability of the community beds had been assessed. The Council would like CVHT to clarify the qualifying criteria and to confirm it to Waverley Borough Council.

Q The Parish Council would like CVHT to clarify to us and to Waverley Borough Council the qualifying criteria for the proposed accommodation block as this is currently unclear. Is the accommodation for key workers or local healthcare workers? Should this application progress the Parish Council would like to see any appropriate qualifying criteria and allocation process secured through a legal agreement rather than a condition. We would also like to highlight that there is still no clarity on the legal agreement and connection between the care home and the separate accommodation block. This must also be established.

• Response as adjacent landowner and beneficiary of the restrictive covenant.

The Parish Council discussed this planning application as adjacent landowner and beneficiary of the restrictive covenant. The Council’s concerns are:

• Impact on the ASVI and views to and from the playing field and from Village Way.

• Flood risk – Concerns were raised that whilst the applicant may have mitigated flooding on their site, the discharge into the watercourse would have a cumulative impact, along with other significant local development on residents further downstream.

• Noise and disturbance from the development – odours, noise from machinery and equipment installed in the buildings for heating, cooling or circulating/extraction of air, light pollution. The overall impact on neighbouring amenity particularly on John Wiskar Drive and the Berkeley Homes development on Knowle Lane from what is a 24-hour business operating on site and its associated traffic, in addition to noise pollution impacting Snoxhall Fields and the loss of rural amenity to the recreation ground.

2 • Highway safety – Cumulative impact of additional traffic movements from this development, the Berkeley Homes development, and the operation of the commercial premises on Knowle Lane, particularly the long standing independent garage operating towards the junction of Knowle Lane which requires the parking of vehicles outside, reducing that area of the road to one lane.

The Council also wants to highlight the impact of this development on the dangerous pedestrian crossing between Knowle Lane and High Street as well as the impact on the crossing point from Snoxhall Fields to the Bruce MacKenzie Playing/Football Field. 

Would you want the same people who repair our roads to run all our services in ‘Your Waverley?


Unitary Authority Map of Surrey

 Here’s a pretty picture of the county of Surrey – which could become a behemoth – Council with 1.2m residents called The Surrey Unitary Authority!

Why? Simples: As Cllr Liz Townsend said at ‘Your Waverley’s’ Full Council meeting recently, The fight to stop Surrey County Council’s power grab has begun.

Cllr Liz Townsend called the county bid “discourteous and predatory” and saw an even darker scenario behind the bid.

“This is an attempt to cut out and weaken the local planning process. To open the doors to development on more green fields. We would be better served to tell the Government that there are currently one million homes granted planning consent that have not yet been built and that is the real uncut truth.”

And here’s the man leading the power grab – Leader Tim Oliver.


In Tim Oliver’s letter  to the Secretary of State asking for Surrey to become a Unitary Authority includes this sentence:-

“We can build more homes more quickly and develop the high streets and town centres of the future, but to do this we need to streamline decision making on planning and infrastructure with a single clear strategic approach.

We can tackle inequality and level up within Surrey to ensure inclusive growth. We can reach net-zero carbon emissions and deliver a greener future. Our One Surrey Growth Board is well-placed to provide the place-oriented leadership and strategic co-ordination to deliver this.”

Want to know which areas have been earmarked on Oliver’s Surrey Growth Board? 

You can read about those areas here: Now, look at Surrey County Council’s cunning plan for ‘Your Waverley’s’ eastern villages.

The Government will publish a Recovery and Devolution White Paper in the autumn, setting out its plans for the devolution of powers, freedoms and flexibilities alongside intentions to increase the number of unitary and combined authorities and elected Mayors.  Doing so will support the achievement of the 2030 Community Vision for Surrey.