Intervention by a Cranleigh ‘businessman’ has prompted another local row over a petition to stop a private care home and replace it with an MIU in Cranleigh.

Featured

Screen Shot 2019-08-25 at 10.06.42.png

They say they want the money trousered by a ‘charity’ to be used instead for a Minor Injuries Unit/ Urgent Care Centre. 

Donors claim they raised £1.4m over almost 20 years for A HOSPITAL + Day Hospital + a Minor Injuries Unit! Not a 60-bed commercial development on former parish-owned land.

Neither will they support 20 community beds for patients who come from anywhere, other than from the donor villages.

Screen Shot 2019-08-23 at 08.14.47 The self-appointed spokesman for… Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust the Chamber of Trade; Knowle Park Country Park Initiative; etc – Martin Bamford “AKA – I am not a spokesman for the Charity”  told Andy Webb – Cranleigh Community Group founder and the man who started the petition that he had “his own agenda,” and had changed the title. See below.

Screen Shot 2019-08-24 at 23.21.20.png

However, here’s what Change.Org says about the Petition which already boasts over 2,500 signatures and comments.

Screen Shot 2019-08-25 at 09.21.13.png

A further twitter feed of invective is aimed at others – including the Waverley Web, which we will not give the benefit of airtime. However, perhaps we would respectfully suggest that Mr. Bamford or ‘The BB” as he is known locally reads some of the letters on Waverley’s Planning Portal and on the on-line Petition Website. As the important issue here is?

What do the residents of Cranleigh and the eastern villages want? Really, really want?

  • Do they want a private 60 – bed private care home, 20 community beds and 26 bedsits on a site they owned and which was sold to a charity by Cranleigh Parish Council for £1?
  • Do they want Mr. Chai Patel’s HC-One Nursing Home Group – 800m in debt and up for sale – granted a 150-year lease – effectively a freehold – in return for 60 private beds for anyone, anywhere (circa £1,200 p.w minimum) and 20 social care beds for patients from within the Guildford & Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group/Surrey County Council, and £1m towards 26 bedsits for health workers from anywhere in Surrey?  

Or?

  • Do they want the application turned down in September by Waverley Planners  for sound planning reasons: – Due to the lack of community benefit, overdevelopment of a site in an area which floods; adjacent and overlooking a Waverley council development; adjacent to  access to a Berkeley Homes development of 425 homes, delivery accesses to Sainsburys’ and M & S Foods and one of the worst junctions from a country lane into the centre of Cranleigh High Street?

OR…

  •  the money the villages raised donated to the Cranleigh League of Friends which boasts over £2m in its coffers, and which has just shelled out £400,000 for a new X-Ray department to complement diagnostics and other services in the old Cranleigh Cottage Hospital. This would enable it to persuade health officials to provide an Urgent Care Centre in the old Day Hospital – a building which was also donated by – yes you guessed – the villagers of Cranleigh and the nearby villages? An empty building that has oodles of available space? The League is led by its trusted chairman who was asked to resign from Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust after a backlash from its members. The League’s president, also a CVHT Trustee, was also asked to resign.

 

We rest the case – and let the good people of Cranleigh & Villages tell their elected representatives and their fellow decision-makers on Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee from around the borough  – what THEY really want their money – and their land –  used for?

Two towns with the same aim in Waverley? But Cranleigh says “NO” to a private Care Home.

Is a bad deal better than no deal – for the residents of the eastern villages?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn’t this new Government Document about Conservation of habitats and species legislation prove that Cllr Gerry Hyman was right all along?

Featured

 

Screen Shot 2018-12-18 at 10.14.35

For years “Your Waverley’s officers have stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the species extinction planning laws (‘Habitats’) Will they continue to ignore it now? Or will they continue serving up the same advice to councillors, that they have in the past?

Regular readers of the Waverley Web will know of the Marmite relationship Waverley officers and some councillors have with the Farnham Residents’ Rebel incarnate – Cllr Jerry Hyman. The man who founded the Farnham Residents Group – whose Chairman John Ward is now Leader of the council.

Love him or hate him – there is no doubt when it comes to the controversial issue of assessing the extinction of species, which he is passionate about, that in the main he is either ignored or censored for his views.  However, we accept that we, and others, find the Habitats Regulations Assessment  pretty impenetrable

Protecting the Special Protection Areas around Farnham, and everywhere else, – Designated European Nature Conservation Sites has been one of his prime concerns ever since he joined Waverley Borough Council in 2016. Formerly he held a seat on the influential Joint Planning Committee but this was denied him in the new administration. Mainly by his own FRs colleagues.

However, perhaps his group – Waverley Planning officers, and everyone else, including the borough’s legal experts should think again…? and.. perhaps so should Government Inspectors?

This includes some information from The Planning Magazine.

Screen Shot 2019-08-19 at 09.54.57

The entirely new Guidance on the use of Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA), was published by the government earlier this week as part of a series of updates to its Planning Practice Guidance.
The move aims to address confusion among practitioners following the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ’s) landmark People over Wind ruling on HRAs in April last year. Any plans or projects in or near EU-designated special areas of conservation or special protection areas must undergo HRAs before they are adopted or gain permission.Screen Shot 2019-08-19 at 22.39.30.png

Outlining the “key principles which can be considered by competent authorities when considering whether appropriate assessment is required,” the guidance says that “it would appear that off-site Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces may be considered as a mitigation measure under People over Wind as their primary purpose is to draw recreational pressure away from sites and so prevent an adverse effect from occurring. In these cases, the competent authority must now assess the robustness of mitigation measures through an appropriate assessment.”

Elsewhere, the document says that “an appropriate assessment for a more strategic plan, such as the local plan, can consider the impacts on sites and confirm the suitability or likely success of mitigation measures for associated non-strategic policies and projects.”

It adds that “an individual assessment of non-strategic policies and projects may not be necessary in some limited cases where the strategic appropriate assessment is sufficiently robust”.

Outlining what an appropriate assessment should contain, the guidance says that it “must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions to ensure that there is no reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the proposed plan or project”.

It adds: “The competent authority will require the applicant to provide such information as may reasonably be required to undertake the assessment.”

In February, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) published revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in light of the People Over Wind ruling.

15 MONTHS SINCE THE RULING.

Paragraph 177 of the July 2018 version of the NPPF had disapplied the presumption in favor of sustainable development if a project required an appropriate assessment, regardless of whether that assessment then found no harm to the site was likely.

But in February, the MHCLG amended paragraph 177 by reinstating the presumption where the appropriate assessment found the project or plan would not affect the integrity of the habitats sites, for example by proposing mitigation measures. 

Screen Shot 2019-08-19 at 11.07.48.png

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appropriate-assessment

But of course – ‘Your Waverley’ will continue to ignore it – along with others.

 

 

Crest proud of its Blightwells progress? But what about its drone licence? Is it making its own rules…again?

Featured

Crest has just released a drone video showing the progress made of flattening East Street. We’ve taken some screenshots too, so you can quickly get a birdseye view.

Meanies that we are – with a little help from one of our Farnham friends – we respectfully ask Crest Nicholson?
It’s interesting to see Crest Nicholson’s aerial footage on the web. This footage was filmed by a drone that was flying illegally over public spaces. If the pilot has a  licence then the CAA will impose a fine on the pilot. If the pilot does not have a licence then they will still be fined and encouraged to take part in the CAA drone training program.

Here are the CAA guidelines on drone usage – might we suggest that Crest Nicholson take note! https://www.caa.co.uk/Consumers/Unmanned-aircraft/General-guidance/Reporting-misuse-of-a-unmanned-aircraft-and-drones/

powered by Advanced iFrame free. Get the Pro version on CodeCanyon.

 

 

We here at the Waverley Web are also keen to update our Brightwells sticker book of new shops coming to the development. We’ve checked on the development website, but there is no more news. They say:

Current retailers legally committed to Brightwells Yard are Marks & Spencer Simply Food, Ask, Seasalt and Reel Cinemas.

Given the early phase of the development, this is an ordinary level of lettings, and Crest Nicholson will be using the successful marketing strategy they have used on commercial aspects of many developments elsewhere to fill the units over time.

We have however updated our sticker book to reflect Surrey’s long lease land investment in the commercial rental contract, which takes the pressure off Waverley.

Brightwells_storecounter_1000

Appeal allowed for three luxury homes bordering the Devil Jumps Special Protection Area in Churt!

Featured

Last week a Government Inspector allowed an appeal for three new luxury homes to be built right next door to the Devils Jumps – a Designated European Nature Conservation site in Churt.

If the Planning Inspectorate can allow building here – it can allow it anywhere.

Q After this decision. Do you still think the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is safe?

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 22.56.16.png

A spate of appeals in the Farnham area have been allowed by the Planning Inspectorate over the last few weeks, but none so daunting as the decision Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 22.55.10.pngto allow three new homes on a site near the Devils Jumps in Churt. A SPA.

Other appeals have been decided in the last month. Such as Branksome house, where the inspectorate allowed a larger scheme days after the committee approved a smaller one which they thought was taking its place…

Also Green Farm in Badshot Lea where an appeal was allowed and the developer has been able to drop the number of “affordable” homes from 18 to 13 using section 73. According to the inspector, this really is nothing more than a “minor material amendment” and he even allowed a costs application against Waverley! Another Joint Planning Committee decision overruled, like so many others.

Neighbours together with Farnham Residents have been fighting development near the Special Protection Area, and in the Green Belt at Borrow House, Jumps Road, Churt, Farnham GU10 2LB by Monachus Estates Ltd,  for a very long time. And it will be a huge comfort to them that the Inspector Mr. Martin Allen “noted their concerns!’  But as you will see – he didn’t share their concerns.

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 22.51.03.png

Part of the site comprises 19 old Nissen type huts which have existed there for some time, and the new homes would occupy the same locations. So the Inspector agreed with the developer this would result in a reduction in the amount of built development already on the land. Also as the three homes would have ‘flat green roofs’ and their height would be limited, devekopment would, in his opinion, significantly improve the openness of the site within the Green Belt.

 Natural England – yet again – raised no objection and was more than content that no harm could be caused to wildlife! Last we heard, Natural England doesn’t have enough staff to monitor anything- as mos have been seconded to help with a ‘No Deal’ Brexit?

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 22.47.40.png

So there you have it, folks. We can all sleep easily in our beds knowing that it doesn’t really matter what ‘Your Waverley’s’ planners decide because the Government’s Planning Inspectorate knows better.

So why in God’s name don’t we just bin the ballot box and let the Government build just where it damn well likes. And, let the countryside – Special Protection Areas and the wildlife –  bats, birds, bees and trees all go along with the Devil’s Jumps to hell in a handcart?

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 22.57.32.png

Two towns​ with the same aim in Waverley? But Cranleigh says “NO” to a private Care Home.

Featured

In and around Haslemere the broken limbs sprains strains and minor wounds rock up to Haslemere Hospital’s Minor Injuries Unit. All you have to do is ring ahead to let them know you are coming.

01483 782334

However, if you have the above in the town of Cranleigh or the surrounding villages – you have to get in the car, the bus or bike 12 miles to the Royal Surrey County Hospital in Guildford. Where you might spend half-an-hour, on a good day, finding a car parking space?

Haslemere Town Councillor Terry Weldon says that the Minor Injuries Unit in Haslemere is a great resource – but says it could be under threat if it cannot be upgraded to an Urgent Care Centre. He says the townsfolk must not allow it to close, so they must attend a meeting at Hasleway, in Haslemere on September 16th.

Meanwhile back in the eastern villages – Cranleigh people are signing a petition to stop a 60-bed Private Care Home and 20 community beds being built, favouring the opening of a Minor Injuries Unit like Haslemere’s in the old cottage hospital’s Day Hospital. A facility they claim will be of much greater benefit to the many thousands of new homeowners descending on the eastern area in their droves.

The Petition that will go before Waverley Planners in September in a bid to stop the development on former parish owned land.

Screen Shot 2019-08-13 at 08.20.12.png

2,094 people have already signed the Cranleigh Petition.Screen Shot 2019-08-13 at 08.23.26.png

You can sign on this link below:

https://www.change.org/p/andy-webb-re-open-cranleigh-hospital-minor-injury-clinic-and-say-no-to-a-private-care-home?recruiter=927243236&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=share_petition&recruited_by_id=99b5d280-127e-11e9-8eb2-f73db36d78fa&utm_content=starter_fb_share_content_en-gb%3Av6

Screen Shot 2019-08-13 at 08.23.37.png

Paper petitions too are available in numerous local shops and business premises and the Cranleigh Community Group has asked us to thank the huge number of local shops and businesses who have agreed to help the campaign. Also to Stonescapes of Cranleigh who have sponsored the car stickers soon to appear on car windscreens and C & A Tickner Printers who is sponsoring the stationary.

Any proceeds from the sale of car stickers or any donations from the campaign will go to The League of Friends of Cranleigh’s (old) Village Hospital. Which the organisers sdsy must not be confused with Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust, which has constantly used the word ‘HOSPITAL’ in its publicity for the new private CARE HOME.

Is a bad deal better than no deal – for the residents of the eastern villages?

 

Just WINGS this time no WHEELS – between Alfold and Dunsfold​.

Featured

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 20.50.07.png

For those of you who may have forgotten.

Or have just arrived on Planet Waverley, a while back there was a planning application to build an 8,000 sq metre warehouse/museum in a green field on a small rural road just a hop, skip and a fence away from Dunsfold Aerodrome. An application, which passed largely unnoticed by many but was refused by Waverley planners.

Now the developer – has appealed to the Government to overturn this decision and an Inspector will be appointed to decide. This appeal will be based on written representations – so everyone’s views are now very important.

It is a very worrying fact that numerous schemes refused locally are now being overturned by the Government!

http://planning360.waverley.gov.uk/civica/Resource/Civica/Handler.ashx/Doc/pagestream?cd=inline&pdf=true&docno=7483540

‘The Wings Museum’ is presently based in Balcombe, Sussex in a large hanger-style building which aims to provide an insight into life in World War 11. It contains memorabilia from the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, The Home Guard, Bomber Command etc.

It was first registered with ‘Your Waverley’ in 2016, – and took years to grind through the planning process?

Having outgrown its existing 12,000 sq ft home, the Trustees acquired a green field off a rural lane in Dunsfold and, despite a minimal income of circa £20,000 per annum, has grand plans to build a 4,000 sq metre building in phase one of their development and grow it to 8,000 sq metres in due course. Its appeal is for an 8,000-metre building.

With projected visitor numbers of some 20,000 per annum, it is hard to imagine a site less suited to be a museum.  If consented visitors will be obliged to approach the venue via Dunsfold village or the Alfold Crossway Junction with the A281, wending their way down single track rural roads with few passing places and multiple blind bends. This is particularly concerning given that a location plan, submitted with the planning application, shows a large area given over to coach parking!!!

Our followers over there nearly choked on their cornflakes when contemplating a 52-seater coach navigating the narrow confines of The Crossways into Dunsfold Road!!! Woe betides the driver if they happen to meet a Cranleigh Freight HGV en route! That’s an encounter they say they would pay good money to see!

The Museum’s original planning application garnered a number of expressions of support primarily, it must be said, from existing Wings Museum enthusiasts, none of whom, it appears live in Waverley. Surprise! Surprise! Folkestone, Worthing, Kingswood and Horley are but a few of the outposts from which these supporters hail and, clearly, they don’t have a clue about the location of their pet project which one local objector refers to as ‘a rural location: reference to Policy RE1 Countryside beyond the Green Belt in the new 2018 LPP1′.

Reading their correspondence, some of the Wings enthusiasts seem to be under the mistaken impression that the new Museum will be situated on Dunsfold Aerodrome itself but that isn’t the case. As far as we can ascertain from the locals over there, it appears to be situated on land formerly owned by the Barnfield Estate.

 Barnfield is a property – which has been on and off the market like a yo-yo for a number of years now – formerly owned by Rupert Howell, of Trinity Mirror Group (owners of the Sorry Advertiser). Now sold to an unknown buyer? Any clues to whom, anyone?

We at the Waverley Web aren’t planning experts but believe, the size of the proposed museum structure – at a height of circa 15 metres – is larger than almost all the existing hangers and industrial units at nearby Dunsfold Park. It has been claimed the proposed new building could comfortably accommodate…

Screen Shot 2019-08-18 at 22.27.47.png

The Waverley Web concurs with the locals that the proposed location of the new Wings Museum is completely inappropriate.  Why the hell would an Inspector consent to a development on this scale on a greenfield site when it could so much more easily and sensibly be accommodated on an adjacent brownfield site? A brownfield site, moreover, that already has a small museum of its own which according to its Masterplan will have a new Museum over the course of the development. But looking elsewhere (Farnham) at recent appeal decisions, stranger things have happened. 

Several objectors point out that they fail to see how such a small charity as the Wings Museum – with annual receipts of circa £22,000 from approximately 5,000 visitors – can possibly afford the construction and development of a multi-million-pound project which would increase the size of its existing museum to six times that of its current site.

The recently opened Aerospace Museum in Bristol, whose running costs were £1.25 million in its first year, had over 150,000 visitors, generating receipts of some £1.91 million. These figures alone call into question the commercial viability of the Wings Museum’s proposal:

  •  If it is deemed to be commercially viable then it follows that the visitor numbers will, necessarily, be huge and this greenfield site on a badly maintained single-track country lane with few passing places and very poor public transport links simply could not cope with them.
  •  If once consented and built, the Museum proves to be unviable, what will happen to the building? Will the museum’s trustees/benefactors seek a change of use to warehousing or other industrial uses?

And that begs another question:

Why did Mr Rupert Howell  – sell off one of his fields to the Wings Museum when he and his wife were keen supporters of the Stop Dunsfold New Town Campaign?

 Why on earth would they sell to someone who could inflict damage to all their Alfold neighbours by allowing someone to park another bloody great hanger on their back lawns?

Chocks away for another Dunsfold Museum?

Is it right that the Government spends 43 times more per mile on national roads ​than ​local roads?​

Featured

Screen Shot 2019-07-07 at 09.48.26.png

Do our county councillors realise how many holiday dramas occurred – thanks to potholes ?

Screen Shot 2019-07-07 at 09.33.49.pngScreen Shot 2019-07-07 at 09.34.27.png

Money councils have been forced to cut from road maintenance funding since 2010 could have paid for the repair of nearly 8 million potholes, analysis by the Local Government Association has revealed.

At the LGA’s Annual Conference in Bournemouth, town hall leaders are calling on the Government to use this year’s Spending Review to deliver a long-term funding plan “to save our roads”.

Latest figures show that the amount of money councils have been able to spend on routine road maintenance has fallen from £1.1 billion in 2009/10 to around £701 million in 2017/18 – a 37 per cent reduction.

Routine road maintenance includes minor road repairs such as potholes, cleaning drains, inspection and fixing street lighting.

The LGA, which represents councils in England and Wales, estimates that this reduction could have covered the cost of repairing 7.8 million potholes.

With councils having lost 60p out of every £1 in central government funding between 2010 and 2020, services such as road maintenance have had to be stripped back to pay for an ongoing surge in demand for children’s services, adult social care support and homelessness support.

Councils are presently fixing a pothole every 17 seconds but it will still take more than £9 billion and a decade to tackle our road repairs backlog. A review is now urgently needed to make long-term improvements on our dilapidated roads.

The LGA’s Transport spokesman, Cllr Martin Tett, said:

“Potholes can be the bane of the motorist’s life. They can damage vehicles and cause accidents.

“Councils are on the side of the motorist and are doing all they can to keep our roads safe and resilient, repairing potholes as quickly as they can.

“But unprecedented funding cuts have meant councils are increasingly limited in how much they can invest in looking after our country’s roads.

“It is not right that the Government spends 43 times per mile more on maintaining our national roads – which make up just 3 per cent of all roads – than on local roads, which are controlled by councils and make up 97 per cent of England’s road network.

“While the extra one-off funding announced in recent years has helped, we need the government to follow with a long-term funding plan to save our roads in the Spending Review.”

Councils spent £1,113,694,000 on environmental, safety and routine maintenance of principle and other LA roads in 2009/10

They spent £701,429,000 in 2017/18

This amounts to a £412,265,000 reduction, which could cover the cost of paying for 7.8 million pothole repairs, based on an average pothole repair cost of £53.

2. Estimated average pothole repair costs

3. ALARM survey key facts – councils fixing a pothole every 17 seconds

4. The LGA’s #CouncilsCan campaign aims to influence the forthcoming Spending Review and highlight the growing risk to vital local services if the Government does not take action to secure the financial sustainability of councils. Visit our campaign page for more information.

 

The gas/oilman commeth with a little bit of help from our county council friends?

Featured

Screen Shot 2019-08-16 at 10.24.18.png

Well done’ Your Waverley’s’ first listening exercise was a rollicking success – and there are calls for more.

Would you Adam and Eve it? Surrey could be backing fracking in our borough!

Now we understand from our friends across the other side of the county that the council bordering the Waverley Borough in Mole Valley is being ignored too!

 

Screen Shot 2019-08-12 at 20.58.47.png

In August 2018, SCC approved the (part) retrospective application for the unauthorised Brockham sidetrack, despite Mole Valley District Council’s unanimous vote to object to it.  You can read it here:http://www.molevalley.gov.uk/CausewayDocList/DocServlet?ref=MO/2018/0444&docid=752621

Be warned Surrey County Councillors! You heard it here first. It is not long until the next county council elections – look what happened in Guildford; Waverley; Woking; and numerous other Surrey borough councils in May.

Start listening to your constituents, or it may come to bite you very hard in your posteriors, and you too will be looking to spend more time with your families.

Notalota folks around for Cranleigh’s ‘fundraising’ concert? But who gets the blame for the cancellation?

Featured

Yes, you guessed – ‘Your Waverley!’

A statement from the organisers of the 1170 Folk Concert heralded by some as –  THE music event everyone has been waiting for – has been CANCELLED!

CFF-Postponed-Graphic-800x800
However, their statement outlining the reasons for the sudden cancellation is very odd.

 It blames ‘Your Waverley’ (YW) or, maybe the parish council, for not licensing the concert sooner, not enough sponsors to fund it, and the risk the charity would face?
Why would the charity risk anything – apart from not getting any funds? Curious?

Well – let’s start at the beginning and tell the truth and crack at least one of the porkies.

You know us, we are quick to give dear old ‘WBC’ a dig in the ribs for the errors it makes, and perish the thought we should become the defender of the faith. But let’s put the record straight:

‘YW’ sprung into action before the May election voting slips were cold.  The Licencing Committee wasn’t even officially formed under the council’s New Guard. However, its interim quasi-judicial former committee bent over backwards and did double somersaults to provide the organisers with their licence to make money for the church!

 Led by acting chairman Michael Goodridge, it leapt into action, only days after the polls, to prevent any delay.

 So eager was she to see the licence approved Cranleigh’s Cllr Patricia Ellis threw normal caution to the wind for a new, untried and untested event, at an untried and tested venue, and supported it becoming an annual event! WOW! Had the organisers promised her a spot in the line-up? However, not everyone was quite so keen.  Cranleigh Parish Council was more cautious, objecting for lack of sufficient information and concerns about traffic in Knowle Lane, Alfold Road and Elmbridge Road.

Will a Folk Concert herald the opening of the new Cranleigh By-Pass?

As for the sponsors.cranleighfolksponsors

The list of sponsors looks pretty heavyweight to us simple souls that we are?

Bellway Homes and The Berkeley Group (not the normal sponsors of a music festival?!) But, say the organisers, they have not met the desired sponsorship targets! Really! Surely ‘lettuce and Leahfy’ are putting their hands into their very deep and well-filled pockets too? After all, wasn’t this event they told the parish council would be the forerunner for future public events attracting  20/30,000 people? Surely Knowle Park’s owners – developers KPI and A2-Dominion – who already boast planning consents coming out of their ears are backing the concert?

Well, you don’t seek a licence for a festival if you don’t have the backing do you, outdoor concerts are such a great risk these days!

Or did they mean the line-up is so poor, and the marketing so bad, they have failed to sell any tickets, in a very busy and competitive market?

(Weyfest in Tilford Farnham this weekend.

 Kenny Jones’s Rock and Horsepower concert at Ewhurst this weekend,

The Secret Widget Festival at Ewhurst 30th Aug -1st Sept.)

https://cranleighfolk.com says: It is with regret that the organisers announce that the Cranleigh Folk Festival due to be held in Knowle Park from the 13th-15th September 2019 has been postponed.
The Folk Festival is designed to provide funds for the 1170 charity which supports the restoration work required for St Nicholas Church Cranleigh. The decision to postpone the event has been taken after careful consideration and is done to ensure the charity is not compromised financially.

The organisers believe that circumstances have conspired to create a significant financial risk that they are not willing to take. The event planning was severely delayed through the licencing process that included objections raised during this process and so extended the time frame by several months. For a first-time event, this has proved to be a major handicap in marketing, engaging the festival audience and securing the requisite sponsorship.

Whilst broad support for the event in the village has been strong current uncertainty within the economy has put businesses under continued pressure. This is completely understandable as it seems that these conditions are also prevalent across the county. As a result of these conditions, it has been difficult for the organisers to reach the desired sponsorship targets.

The organisers would like to thank all those who gave their time and commitment to the intended event. The organisers remain committed to meet their obligations in full. We look to reorganise and come back in the future.

For the benefit of all our readers – we are told Cranleigh has a huge venue for concerts and shows – including The Cranleigh Agricultural Show; The Lions Classic Car Show and other events. A tried and tested venue well away from residential properties – it is called ‘The Cranleigh Showground.’

Screen Shot 2019-08-15 at 10.36.29.png