A lake-inside development going to Cranleigh? Huge housing development coming to Farnham… on even more green fields?


What does  the Protect Our Waverley Group have to say about these two major applications. Nothing; nada; nic; niente; nimic; ekkert; rien; gar nichts;….

WHY? Because these two sites are on green fields – one of which is often under water adjacent to the Cranleigh Waters and the Wey and Arun Canal and where the man trapped in the blue car, pictured below almost died!

Watch here for yourself, the section, Elmbridge Road, with the site under consideration in Flood Zone 2 and 3, completely submerged. and then watch  the Waverley Wally’s give it the go-ahead!


 Waverley Planners are recommending that the Joint Planning Committee (which now boasts only two Cranleigh members,) grants consents for 55 houses in Elmbridge Homes (Thakeham Homes/Stovolds Hill Farm Ltd.) Another on land West of Green Lane, Badshot Lea for up to 105 dwellings. (Lampoon Developments.)

In Farnham  the recommendation is for approval of the outline and access only, with all matters reserved! Oh!  by the way,  two and a half storeys (actually three) on this development, is quite acceptable, say officers, as  they “add visual interest.” 

Pop along to a few Crest Nicholson developments and see if you think they add “visual interest.” They are three storeys high not 2.5, in ours, and everyone else’s book, and they urbanise villages!

Pictured below is the lakeside vista that visits Cranleigh quite regularly during heavy rain – and where Thakeham ‘Stupid’ Homes want to build 55 dwellings. You can read an earlier blog here: You couldn’t make it up – could you! Sub Aqua development coming to Cranleigh?

Screen Shot 2017-06-20 at 10.51.15.pngscreen-shot-2016-10-24-at-10-27-25

You will see from the report below the numerous  objections to both schemes. However, the determination of Liz the Biz and the motley crew she leads/drives/whips, into submission, will completely ignore any restraints or objections from local people, and press ahead regardless of the misery they heap onto these two villages.

Public reports pack 28062017 1830 Joint Planning Committee

These are a few of the  Farnham objections including one from Farnham Town Council:

  •   Little in the way of local shopping, post office or other facilities other than 2 pubs.
  •   No doctors or shops.
  •   There are brownfield sites in larger areas, wouldn’t these be best?
  •   Villages of Badshot Lea and Weybourne have expanded more than they should have.
  •   120 new homes on green field sites is not sustainable, viable or environmentally acceptable.
  •   Unsustainable location with no transport links. Highways
  •   Traffic volume into Lower Weybourne Lane would be hazardous and would increase volume through the already congested traffic lights at Badshot Lea.
  •   Effect on traffic access and egress to surrounding areas.
  •   Road access onto Lower Weybourne Lane unsuitable.
  •   Access to the site is very narrow and proposed junction would have poor visibility.
  •   Impact on traffic in Upper and Lower Weybourne Lane and Weybourne Road, already difficult to cross at school at start and end of school day as 5 schools in 1 mile of site (2 have over 1500 pupils each).
  •   Knock on congestion at 6 Bells Roundabout particularly if the proposed building adjacent to Monkton Lane and St John’s Church takes place.
  •   Highway hazard for bungalow on corner of Green Lane/ Lower Weybourne Lane due to restricted vision/blind spot.
  •   Currently only traffic using the entrance is SEB.
  •   Entrance too narrow to accommodate two way traffic with footpathseither side.
  •   Future use of Green Lane as a “rat run” from Badshot Lea.
  •   Sometimes can’t get out of Orchard Road due to parked cars.
  •   Green Lane is insufficient for the increased volume of traffic.
  •   Vehicles of new inhabitants will cause further congestion in the area.
  •   Lack of ‘off street’ parking therefore new development will increase the number of cars on already cluttered roads.
  •   Lower Weybourne Lane is main walking route to schools at either end.
  •   Lack of off-street parking on proposed site will lead to parking on existing roads or partially block the pedestrian pathway.
  •   Serious traffic congestion already at nearby Shepherd and Flock roundabout. Extra 250 cars would make this worse.
  •   Wentworth Close already used extensively for parking for parents of children at local schools for 2 hours per day and this would inevitably get worse.
  •   Unrealistic amount of car parking.
  •   Cycling in area is very low at 1%. Roads risky for cycling due to narrowlanes and number of car movements.
  •   Car parking guidelines not fit for purpose in semi-rural areas.
  •   Aldershot station is 2.7km from the end of Green Lane, not 2km.Landscape Impacts
    •   One of the last public green spaces left.
    •   Would change look and feel of area from semi-rural to high density housing.
    •   Destruction of beautiful countryside.
    •   Would not be a short-term slightly adverse impact on view.
    •   Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment fails to note the site is visible to most of the hillside area between Weybourne Rd and A325 (Hale).
    •   One of the few areas of natural beauty in the immediate area.

Visual Impact/Design

  •   Size of the proposed development is overwhelming for the space available.
  •   Proposed flats would not be in keeping with the local area, which is mostly single storey, bungalows or chalet style properties.
  •   Developments should be considerate of the style of surrounding area (with comparable size back gardens)
  •   Grossly over-dense and does not reflect the densit y of surrounding houses.
  •   Out of character – too many dwellings.
  •   Housing does not match the local character.
  •   Overdeveloped at 36.6 dwellings per hectare. Nearby developments of Badshot Parka nd Glorney Meead are 20 and 26 per hectare. Wentworth Close and Lower Weybourne Lane form the northern and western boundaries of the site and have densities of 17 and 26 per hectare.
  •   Town houses and 3 storey apartment blocks incompatible with adjacent built environment.
  •   Unacceptable urbanisation.
  •   Fails to meet all the ‘good design’ guidelines outlined in Section 7 ofthe NPPF.
  •   No defined design or description for the proposed houses, only artist impressions. If they houses are tall town houses will be out of keeping with rest of local housing.
  •   Proposed plans footprint and height are excessive and not suitable for the area.
  •   Loss of village identity. Flooding
    •   Land floods regularly.
    •   Concerns with the water table and potential flooding.
    •   More buildings will lead to surface runoff and contribute to even more flooding.
    •   Saturated in winter/waterlogged regularly.
    •   Lower Weybourne Lane regularly floods by bridge.
    •   No where for drainage to go.
    •   Badshot Lea and Lower Weybourne suffer badly from surface water flooding which gets worse each year.
    •   The whole site is within the catchment of the River Wey, a water course runs from the west to the east of the site and also southwards and the northern boundary is shown to be in the groundwater Safeguard Zone.


  •   Wildlife seen include Dormice, deer, badgers and bats, Canada geese and pheasants, little Egrets, Dartford Warbler, Kingfishers, Barn Owls, small mammals, buzzards, newts, frogs, grass snakes, moles, foxes, rabbits, general bird life. Field is a necessity for local wildlife.
  •   See deer and kites every day.
  •   Negative impact on rare plants and wildlife on the site and nearby.
  •   Need open green spaces for balance of nature, eco-systems and environmental issues.
  •   Site supports wildlife from recently developed sites around it.
  •   Within 1.6km of Thames Basin Heaths and can’t realistically beprovision of SANG.
  •   An assessment needs to be made of the effect on the local SSSIs.
  •   Site should be turned into a nature reserve.
  •   Lies within Thames Basin Heaths SPA Buffer Zone and a large increase in population is incompatible with the aims of the SPA designation in this area.Amenity
    •   Area is a popular dog walking spot of which there are few. In summer months when Farnham Park has cattle grazing is only dog walking option.
    •   Used for children to walk safely from school.
    •   Loss of amenity space when more houses need more amenity space.
    •   Although very loosely privately owned, has been used for decades by the community
    •   Increase in traffic noise.
    •   Light pollution.
    •   Loss of privacy to existing residents as proposed houses would be looking directly into gardens, bedrooms and bathrooms and existing houses will be overlooked.
  •   Layout and density would lead to overshadowing, loss of privacy and disturbance as well as loss of visual amenity.
  •   Loss of views onto green space from all front aspect windows. Would have major impact on large number of adjacent properties.
  •   Taking away outside area used for a better life.
  •   Green Lane is probably the last unsurfaced country lane left in the localarea and used by walkers and cyclists as a pleasant break of peace
  •   Direct overshadowing from new development, lack of privacy and a significant loss of light.
  •   Loss of footpaths on site.
  •   Health concerns from being near high voltage power lines and exhaustfumes from existing traffic.
  •   Concern that application will rely on Farnham Park SANG and what remains should be reserved for brownfield applications in Farnham.
  •   Little consideration given to lives of people already in residence.
  •   Loss of views and devaluation.
  •   Turning sit e into village green would be far more beneficial to the area.Infrastructure
  •   120 houses is too much and road infrastructure can’t cope and schools already over subscribed.
  •   Would be detrimental to surrounding infrastructure including schools, health facilities and environment.
  •   Lack of sewerage capacity resulting in obnoxious smells from the Water Lane plant.
  •   Local sewerage depot in Monkton Lane is already overstretched with the current sewerage capacity.
  •   Doctors surgeries already overloaded.
  •   Schools, doctors, dentists and social services are already at full capacity. Can’t cope with more housing without significant infrastructure development.
  •   Bus service is not regular and poor public transport.
  •   Pressure on local utilities infrastructure.
  •   Lack of local shops, post office, bank facilities, GP Services, lack ofcycle paths and safe routes to schools/pre-schools from the site.
  •   Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the application.
  •   Adjacent recreation ground would be insufficient for the increase in number of users.
  •   No plans to build new roads or improve the existing ones. Other Matters
    •   Would be detrimental to the village.
    •   No remaining separation between communities of Badshot Lea andWeybourne and insufficient services in either community.
    •   Fields to west of Green Lane are the last remaining fields between Farnham and Aldershot.
    •   If Council Housing hadn’t been sold off to people able to buy market housing there would be no shortage of Council accommodation.
    •   Would encourage other further development of surrounding fields that could all be linked together.
    •   Total 80% increase in village size planned (441 homes).
    •   Were under the impression that land formed part of the Strategic Gapbetween Farnham and Aldershot which needs to be maintained.
    •   Major disruption from vehicles required for building work.
    •   Green Lane will no longer be a country lane.
    •   Proposed site is close to (under?) major power cables. Will it be safe, secure and cost effective.
    •   Character of the village should be considered.
    •   Would be completely against policy to protect the Countryside beyondthe Green Belt.
    •   WA/2014/0391 for 140 houses was rejected in July 2015 and this site is only 100m away and should be rejected on the same basis.
  •   Effect on house values as yet unknown.
  •   Adds to national argument of county boundary change by increasingpopulation between Aldershot and Farnham.
  •   Lack of meaningful local consultation. Objections voiced were not reflected in the proposal.
  •   Failure to meet NPPF guidelines including Paragraph 64.
  •   Badshot Lea is not suburban, as described by applicant.
  •   No identifiable benefits as far as the local community are concerned.
  •   Many areas in south Farnham where there is space to build and less congestion.
  •   Council has yet to reveal its Local Plan
  •   Amendment from 120 to 105 units does not alleviate previous concernsand reduction is insignificant and overall problems remain. Submissions in supportIn support of the application the applicant has made the following points:
  •   Access into the site is proposed from Green Lane. The existing road is a narrow lane and a new widened access for the northern section of the road is proposed. Whilst Green Lane will remain as a link to the south, the junction with the new site access will be specificallydesigned to prevent vehicles exiting the site in a southerly direction.
  •   The density of 30.95 dwellings per hectare, which reflects the density ofother development in the area.
  •   The layout of the housing development submitted is for illustrativepurposes only. Internally the access road has been laid out to provide perimeter housing development to ensure new private gardens are back to back with the existing rear gardens adjoining the site. The central area of the site is laid out as a number of back to back houses, parking courtyards and a centrally located mews development. There are a number of flats proposed within the development which are located towards the south eastern corner of the site. The layout has been designed to connect through to the recreational space and public footpath to the south ensuring good connectivity of the site to the existing amenities in the area.
  •   The layout will incorporate design features to provide a sense of space, legibility and focal points to the main views into the sites.
  •   Generally the scale of the new housing will be 2 storeys in height, a row of 2.5 storey housing is indicated to provide a contrast and add visual interest to the principle access road. This will act as a focal point to the site entrance and further add to the type of housing proposed. These town house properties are located towards the centre of the site ensuring there will be no loss of amenity or overlooking of the existing properties adjoining the site.
  •   Proposed flats are included in the overall master plan to again add to the choice of housing types and tenure being made available and to ensure efficient use is being made of the available land. Designated parking courts are provided for each of the flatted units.
  •   The location of three storey flats in the South East sector is considered to be an appropriate form of development as the high level cables already give a perceived scale to the area.
  •   Play areas are located in the South East corner with good landscaped screening and security through the views and perceived ‘overlooking’ from the adjacent flatted developments.
  •   Landscaping has been considered as an integral part of the layout, ample opportunities have been takes to ensure there will be ample space available f

If you read all that lot?

Screen Shot 2017-06-22 at 22.38.39.png

It’s all about Butts.



It would seem the chickens have come home to roost for the woman, formerly known as the Deputy Dominatrix, in the recent reshuffle following Teresa May’s now infamous election victory that wasn’t!


StTriniansanne.pngWithout a parliamentary majority and with Labour, the Greens (or do we mean the Green?!), the Lib Dems and the SNP hell-bent on a summer of discontent, the Tories know that their Whips need to be of the highest calibre. No surprises, then the woman formerly known as the Deputy Dom hasn’t made the grade, cut the mustard, come up to snuff … we could go on but you get the picture.

Too busy rushing around the Westminster Village, calling in political favours at the behest of Protect our Little Corner … to be effective where  it now really matters – in the Whips Office!  Now the going’s got tough the Deputy Dom has been kicked into the long grass – otherwise known as the Department of Education.  There where no one expects anything of  import or substance to occur now the PM’s grandiose plan for more grammar schools has been abandoned because the Trots, who are snapping at her heels, don’t like anything that smacks of middle-class privilege!

Rumours abound that Matron Milton’s leaving present from the Whips Office was a T-shirt bearing the inscription Been there, done that, made it all better!

As if!!!

One of the wits at the Waverley Web’s most recent brain-storming suggested a better strap line for the woman formerly known as the Deputy Dom: Just Relax! This won’t hurt a bit …

Who’s she trying to kid? The people of Cranleigh who are up to their necks in sh*t pits and concrete, all because she bullied Barwell into calling in the Biggest Brownfield site in the Borough! Another lot going through next week on a – flood plain, opposite the Poo Factory!

Having spent her formative years on the wards and in the sluice room, before sliding down into the sewers of Westminster, we can only assume Matron Milton presumes that, like her, the people of Cranleigh don’t mind being up to their elbows in effluent … or, maybe, it’s just that when the sh*t hits the fan in Cranleigh, Matron Milton will simply waltz back up the A281 to Guildford …

Or maybe she just got caught short for, rumour has it, Matron Milton was planning to retire at the next election but was wrong-footed when the PM called a snap one. Although her vote was 2.5% down on two years ago that didn’t stop the lacklustre Guildford MP gushing to the Surrey Advertiser, ‘It’s fantastic and I think the really humbling moment is the fact the people of Guildford and Cranleigh have put their trust and faith in me again …’

Hardly! Let’s get real for a moment. As we’ve said before – and, as our regular readers know, we never mind repeating ourselves – Matron Milton has the good fortune to be in a seat so safe it they put a blue rosette on the arse of a monkey  Cranleigh residents would vote for it! 

The DD has spent her entire career in the butts arena – first she was sticking it to people with a syringe, then  tongue-lashing them into shape in the Whips Office and now she’s landed on her butt in education where she will, no doubt, be dishing out six of the best to the right to  the far right. Oh how the not so mighty have fallen …! Strange to think Cronus, the Tory Chief Whip, Gavin Williamson’s, desk-top tarantula survived the reshuffle whilst the hapless Matron Milton didn’t. What’s he got she hasn’t? Well, according to the Chief Whip, ‘ Cronus is a perfect example of an incredibly clean, ruthless killer – absolutely fascinating to rear.’ And there you have it, we’re back to the butts again!

Butt enough of the Westminster Village! Back  in Alfold and Dunsfold, rumour has it Matron Milton and Kevin D’Anus have been working closely together to dash the Dunsfold development, which leads us to conclude with that old chestnut:

What did one butt cheek (D’Anus) say to the other butt cheek (Matron Milton): Together we can stop this brown stuff and plump for the green stuff.

Talking of ‘that Dick D’Anus’ rumour in the corridors of Waverley has it that Kevin D’Anus thinks he’s got a great ass … What???!!!??? Apparently, it’s because every time he finishes talking and walks away he hears people whisper, ‘What an ass!’ Yep, you read it here first, folks!

Ever wondered why there aren’t enough employment sites in ‘Your Waverley.’ well here’s your answer!


All over the borough/country due to recent changes in planning legislation, former office/work unit accommodation units are being turned into residential accommodation.


Because with business rates and rents rising it is now proving to be more profitable for developers to turn them into residential units.

Then along come developers,  no doubt, seeking planning permission   to build similar offices and shops for much needed employment, and then…..

Around and around it all goes again…

Screen Shot 2017-06-06 at 20.12.12.png

Is ‘Your Waverley” turning a deaf ear to everyone in this borough?


It’s official – Your Waverley really has GONE TO POTTS! It doesn’t listen to anyone, anywhere, any time, any more!

So how about we all  get together – and take  a Screen Shot 2017-06-19 at 22.50.50.png

The doors of the council chamber are more often than not slammed shut and now the closed notices have gone up and the locks are on the public lavatories in Haslemere, Godalming and Farncombe.

godalming toilets.JPG

Just been barred … from having a pee in Godalming..


Other residents have taken it upon themselves to install mobile loos – in the bus shelter in Godalming. Route Number 2?

Here’s our post: OH DEAR! What can the matter be?

and here’s a sample ‘ of  the Twitter storm!

Screen Shot 2017-06-19 at 17.51.47.png

Perhaps that Vote of NO CONFIDENCE fell on deaf ears?



This is a letter sent out to supporters of The Cranleigh Civic Society – from the people…screen-shot-2016-05-03-at-14-22-39

Dear Members and Friends

As you are aware, Cranleigh Civic Society held a meeting in the Village Hall on 25th May to discuss the planning permission already granted and the further huge amount of housing being earmarked for Cranleigh in the draft Local Plan.
Many residents expressed their deep concerns about the relentless growth of new housing in Cranleigh, particularly as Waverley Borough Council has simply not dealt with Cranleigh’s serious infrastructure problems first.
At the end of the meeting, local residents took a vote of “NO CONFIDENCE” in the Leadership of Waverley Borough Council

226 FOR
1 AGAINST (this was a Waverley Borough Councillor)
2 ABSTENTIONS (we think from people who live outside of Cranleigh)

We have written to Julia Potts, the Leader of Waverley Borough Council, to confirm the vote of “No Confidence” taken by those attending the public meeting:
Dear Ms Potts
As you are aware, Cranleigh Civic Society recently organised a public meeting at our village hall at which we shared our knowledge of what is happening now, and what is being planned for the future of our village. Many of the 229 people who attended passionately expressed their anger and concerns about the volume of housing your team has approved to be built on our green fields and how many more you intend to send our way.
Equal to this were the worries about how our already poor infrastructure will cope with the huge increase in the population. As promised, I relayed your message of how much you care about our village, and I must tell you it was not well received.
At the end of the meeting we offered the opportunity for them to vote by a show of hands if they wanted to send you a strong and clear message that they do not have confidence in your team’s ability to care for the quality of our lives and wellbeing through your actions and inaction; 226 voted to support this statement, one opposed and two abstained.
I trust this message is clear.
Phill Price
Cranleigh Civic Society

We have not received a reply from this letter yet.

Also discussed at the meeting was the petition we have been running to ask our MP to insist on our drinking water to be tested for the risk from asbestos, as 29.6% of our water pipes are made from asbestos cement. The petition has now closed at 714 signatures and we have now sent this to Anne Milton for her action.
What are the next steps?
We are now investigating the options available to us and we will let you know when we know more.

What can we all do?
– Write to your MP Anne Milton NOW (email anne.milton.mp@parliament.uk). Whilst we as the Cranleigh Civic Society are strictly non-political, you may feel that you have been let down by your MP in not stopping the relentless attack by housing developers on Cranleigh’s green fields, particularly as it is Government Policy that brown field sites should be built on nationally first.
– Write to the Waverley Borough Councillors (details are on their website) to tell them you are not happy with the way the decisions are made.
– Object online on all applications you feel are unsustainable – details are on our website
– Turn up at the Council Offices at The Bury’s, Godalming when the Joint Planning Committee meet to vote on the larger housing applications. The public gallery only has a few seats so either turn up early or turn up just for the arrival of the councillors before the meeting so that they can see that people of Cranleigh do really care.
– If not already done, subscribe to the updates from our website, so you are informed of any news

We will update the website in the next few days with diary dates for the upcoming Little Meadow application, Springbok Inquiry, Dunsfold Inquiry, etc


Jane Price
Membership Secretary
Cranleigh Civic Society


Will the people of Cranleigh get a response?

Don’t hold your breath, because ‘Your Waverley’ doesn’t give a jot what Cranleigh people think. If it  did, it wouldn’t be putting out RFP’s (Request for Proposal) to sports consultants around the country to build a new Leisure Centre on the Snoxhall Playing fields – on land held  by Cranleigh Parish Council on behalf of its residents!

OH DEAR! What can the matter be?



‘Three of our towns won’t have any lavatories, they’ll have nothing from Monday till Saturday, nobody knows to pee where..?

Haslemere,  Godalming and Farncombe won’t have a pot to pi** in thanks to ‘Your Waverley.’

In other words the borough has, literally Gone to Potts!

Let’s all pee in Julia’s Potty!

How about this for a sorry tale of woe if ever there was one. Spending a penny, just became a whole lot more difficult for the folk in three  of our beleaguered towns.

In its bid to save pounds, spending a penny in the three town’s public conveniences is about to become a Hurculean task. Because they are about to: Close; shut; taet; dicht; fermer; preto; in der Nahe; chiudere; közel; preto; a prop; gar….

Get the picture? SHUT.

Screen Shot 2017-06-16 at 21.59.32.png

Screen Shot 2017-06-16 at 22.00.04.pngScreen Shot 2017-06-16 at 22.00.39.png

WW found the bit about the “Acting Town Clerk” Andy Jeffery interesting! In fact we could find the reason for the sudden departure of The Town Clerk … very interesting. WWethinks we need to start spinning that web!

Here’s Haslemere’s WC which is about to be slashed to make for more parking spaces! It tells the WW…

Haslemere Town Council is very concerned that Waverley Borough Council is intending to close the public toilets in the High St carpark to make way for more parking spaces.

Screen Shot 2017-06-16 at 22.22.56.png

We are currently making representations to WBC to try and keep this well used facility open on behalf of local residents but we need your help. Although we know they are well used and vital to many residents, by signing this petition you give further weight to our fight by clicking on the link at the bottom of the post.

Thankfully over there in the East of the borough all the developers over there are flushed with their own success. They are busy building their very own poo pits now the Grampian Conditions drafted by ‘Your Waverley’ aren’t worth the toilet paper they were written on and the sewage treatment works cannot cope! 

Sign Haslemere’s petition to stop the slashing of services! https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-haslemeres-public-toilets

Dunsfold Airfield – a Heritage Site? – No way!


So determined are the members of ‘Protect Out Little Corner of Waverley and to hell with the rest,’ to stop the development of the borough’s largest brown field site, that they have dragged  tax-payer-funded Historic England into their bitter battle against the developers.  But yet another determined effort to stop development at Dunsfold at all costs, has, failed.

POLCOW – is throwing the taxpayers’ money around like smarties in their endeavours to save their little patch of the borough from development. In addition to wanting to stick  a blue plaque on the site and call it a National Treasure, it has also sought and gained permission for a Judicial Review against – Super Efficient Waverley Borough Council – because the dummies FORGOT, yes, that’s right  FORGOT! to add a decision made by the Executive plonkers in December 2014 into its Constitution!

Yes, one of the most important base documents that the borough council holds – and works to,  was,  quickly changed following legal advice at the last Executive meeting …  INCOMPLETE AND INCORRECT!

You can read more about the big gaff  here:

Cranleigh’s voice has spotted that mistake – that might be getting… BIGGER!

:Could POW, KNOW HOW – TO SCUPPER ‘Your Waverley’s planning decisions? 

 Ten out of Ten to POLCOW for spotting the mistake. Nil Point – for wasting even more of the tax-payers rapidly diminishing funds and giving the thumbs-up to every single developer sending drones over our countryside, including large sites in Alfold and Dunsfold,  to make-up the shortfall when/if the airfield  bites the dust!

Of course, if you are really protecting ‘Your Waverley” as you so boldly claim, perhaps if your bid succeeds, you realise that many of the consents given on developments already under-way around the borough are illegal too! 

Another fine mess ‘Your Waverley’ has got us into?

Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 11.00.21

Oh! by the way DAHS spokesman … where have you been all these years, Dunsfold has a Museum which is well supported by people near and far who have  emotional links with the place.  Your view , is not the overwhelming view of  the local population. Talk about hyperbole!  You could spin a bigger web than we do!

OH! And please don’t stop sending your childish complaints. We don’t mislead the public, we inform them and so does the brilliant Farnham and Haslemere Heralds – featured here:


Screen Shot 2017-06-15 at 22.29.58.png

Screen Shot 2017-06-15 at 22.30.17.png

Have ‘Your Waverley’ and the Berkeley Bunnies played a foul on Cranleigh’s sports men, women and children?


Here they go, here they go… to…Alfold…Dunsfold…Ewhurst…Horsham or the lowest bidder?

A decision by “Your Waverley” and …  for the moment –  by, others … UNKNOWN, – may have signalled the end of one of the oldest football clubs in Surrey.

 The insensitivity of  Waverley Borough Council  could prove to be the last straw that breaks the back of Cranleigh’s 124 year-old  Football Club…

** Ah well! What happens in Farnham to-day – happens to Cranleigh and the rest of the borough tomorrow!


By providing £173,000 towards an All Weather Football Pitch at – Cranleigh Public School

Screen Shot 2016-06-18 at 09.50.34.png

Please Sir – can you find Cranleigh footballers a new home?

It is widely  known locally, that Berkeleys had promoted other schemes to improve the lives of young and old – as part of its contribution towards  the creation of Cranleigh new Town.

It offered ‘Your Waverley a £1.3m community building on part of its site of 425 new homes between Knowle Lane and Alfold Road, Cranleigh. This was scuppered by a Cranleigh borough/parish councillor! 

It is also well-known locally that Park Mead School requires £25,000 towards improving its facilities!

But ‘Your Waverley’  – decided it was prudent to provide £173,000 to one of the country’s top private schools.  At a time when the car park to the Snoxhall Playing fields is  closed due to health and safety hazards and the Snoxhall Pavilion,  where senior and youth footballers took cold showers throughout the Winter,  – is,  a disgrace ! 

This sentence is taken from the council papers in a list of contributions by Berkeley Homes, as part of an Infrastructure package. Other developers are putting money into Cranleigh Arts Centre.

Screen Shot 2017-06-05 at 20.55.31.png

However, at behind closed doors meetings with officers, Cranleigh borough and county councillors and the developer, Berkeley Homes’  offer was shunned in favour of…the above. 

 The details of a £3m legal agreement that Berkeley Homes will contribute  for infrastructure were recently revealed by officers. There was an  outcry at a recent public meeting when villagers learned that it included £173,000 for a synthetic pitch to be constructed near Glebelands School.   Waverley planners were considering details of the first (55) of four phases of 425 homes planned at the back of Stocklund Square.

Waverley Web asks ..was no thought at all given to grass-roots sport in  Cranleigh?

This latest revelation, for the cash-strapped football club, could now be   the final straw – and at a meeting last week, the club  warned – it may have to leave Cranleigh after 124 years!

One player wrote to the Waverley Web saying: “the shock revelation that this huge sum of money has been contributed towards a pitch for Cranleigh School – and that villagers will have to pay to use it, is the final kick in the crotch for our players.

We have been struggling for years. It costs four times as much for our teams to play in Cranleigh than in any of the other villages around – the facilities at Snoxhall are non-existent, and quite frankly are a disgrace. The parish council has recently closed the car park – and we have heard to-day that we, and visiting teams,  will in future,  have  to pay to use it.  Which is against League rules, and we may be thrown out!

 We  feel we no longer belong in our own village. We believe  Waverley Council is considering building a new Leisure Centre on part of our playing fields – and we understand, the parish council, who owns the land  is trying to “protect them”  from the land grabbers at Waverley. So if we leave Cranleigh perhaps we will be doing everyone a favour?”

It may be too late, but some thought needs to be given to ensuring the development and success of grass root sport in Cranleigh, particularly football, which attracts over 400 youngsters and older players every Saturday.

We want to know? – Where are all the children of all these families  proposing to  live here going to play sport in the future?

Screen Shot 2017-06-06 at 17.15.04.png

** Farnham folk Petitioned the Queen to remove the town from Waverley. Cranleigh folk take a Vote of No Confidence in Waverley. Farnham’s Memorial Hall and playing fields used by the football club,  kicked out and moved elsewhere. Waverley has its eye on  Cranleigh football grounds ….and  Haslemere’s youth facilities.. etc … Sound familiar?

Wonder if they have had a reply yet?



This is the letter The Cranleigh Civic Society sent to ‘You Waverley” following a….

Screen Shot 2017-06-06 at 20.29.41.png

Screen Shot 2017-06-06 at 20.30.04.png

The message may be clear Mr Price, but don’t hold your breath waiting for a response that will bring about any change, take your Vote of No Confidence seriously,  prompt a change of culture, or recognise your very serious concerns. Concerns that are shared  by many other residents of the borough including here in Farnham. 

Perhaps they could take a lesson from the recent General Election and the arrogance shown by the Tory party nationally….  and start listening?

P.S. the  abstention  was a Waverley Borough Councillor and the two abstentions were from people who lived outside Cranleigh. So in other words – the vote was UNANIMOUS.