Category: Waverley Borough Council

Sparks flew at Waverley Towers recently when the future of the borough’s grounds maintenance contract was considered.

The debate around the issue revealed more than a few wrinkles in the negotiations with Krinkels (UK)!

Not everyone was entirely convinced that the council should be spending £1m by taking back the maintenance of its grounds “in-house.” Particularly after Tory Leader Cllr Jane Austin reminded her colleagues, with monotonous regularity, that the council’s days are numbered, Jeremy Hunt’s lady-in-waiting gleefully reminds colleagues, many of whom have clocked up decades of loyal service to the borough, that the skids are under them whenever an opportunity arises.

However, she said that spending a million pounds of ratepayers’ money during a period of local authority upheaval was not a sensible or prudent use of taxpayers’ money; she claimed insufficient evidence was provided to make a decision. She questioned the officer’s support and evidence for the change. However, she was told the information had been provided when the decision had been made a year earlier, which she would have been aware of.

Why wasn’t this figure in the Council’s budget?

The Monitoring Officer reminded members who felt they did not have sufficient information to abstain from voting.

The Executive decided in March 2025 to take back control of its grounds maintenance service and to begin functioning on November 1st, 2025. However, to mobilise the service, £1,000,000 was needed to buy machinery, vehicles, equipment, and other essentials.  

Krinkels (UK), formerly Continental Landscapes Limited, was given a twelve-month extension to the grounds maintenance contract, which ceases in November 2025. This follows a previous five-year tenure. 

Cllrs heard that Krinkels’  performance had been positive, with 89%—99% performance receiving incentive payments through established metrics and customer satisfaction surveys. 

Cllr Steve Williams said taking back the contract would lead to a

“more directly managed, efficient, and responsive service. During a period of dramatic change. The decision has already been agreed upon to enable us to be more flexible and provide a greener service.

All that remained was the council’s agreement to spend £1m to provide the tools to do the job. Any future authority would significantly benefit from cost reductions, particularly as many of the borough’s towns and parishes wanted to take ownership of maintaining their own green spaces. It would enable W to manage that process smoothly, which would be challenging with the existing contract. 

However, when Mayor John Ward’s bete noir, Cllr Jerry Hyman, questioned the legitimacy of making the decision without sufficient information and asked if Krinkels had been consulted on the proposed change, he attempted to gag him again! With no success.

Cllr Hyman said: I want to know, have we spoken to Krinkels on this? If I cannot get an answer, then I shall have to ask them myself.  Later, he said:

I have spoken to them; no, they haven’t been spoken to.

Why aren’t we given the alternative option of not spending £1m? I am not against the principle that there are savings, but we are spending that sort of money in the death throws of this council. What am I missing here? How can I justify this expenditure to residents? We have a duty to be prudent. We are entitled to have the answers to our concerns and questions. This happens time and time again.

He argued no decision had been made on the proposal to spend £1m.

“Of course, we have spoken to Krinkels,” said Cllr Steve Williams. This has been a matter of ongoing negotiations. The decision has already been made.

He Drew attention to council papers in August 2024. Krinkels did not anticipate that the contract would be extended or that a further extension was possible. Delaying a decision by spurious assumptions that have now been made would not help the situation. We can vote today in favour, against, or abstain.

Cllr Hyman called for an amendment to defer the Executive’s decision for further scrutiny by the relevant Overview & Scrutiny Committee and for reconsideration at a future date by the Council. His motion was lost by a narrow vote after strong support by others.

Leader Cllr Paul Follows said that despite an opportunity, no request for further scrutiny had been made when the original decision was made a year earlier. ~ He warned that a decision was now “time critical.”

Godalming Town Council had benefitted from doing its own ground maintenance. When Surrey didn’t, as was often the case, they were able to step in. Residents valued this.

“Our crews get out and fix things within a day. The same flexibility is proposed here.”

 Cllr Ward rebutted Cllr Hyman’s earlier claim that Krinkels had not been consulted. He was followed by Waverley head honcho CEO Pedro Wrobels, who seldom intervenes and said that they most definitely had.

Cllr Jacqui Keen said. Councillors were very confused.

We have been told that the Executive had spoken to Krinkels. Cllr Hyman says he has spoken to them, but they haven’t been informed.

Someone here is not telling the truth!

Mayor John Ward said that to clarify the position, the CEO would speak.

CEO Pedro Wrobels   said:

“I can clarify that we have spoken to Krinkels on a regular basis. The Assistant Director in charge, Marcus Harvey, has spoken to the MD  of Krinkels as part of this discussion in the last six weeks and on a frequent basis throughout this process.”.

After a recorded vote, the Motion to spend the £lm was passed by 21 votes for, 14 against, and three abstentions.

Krinkels changed its name from Continental Landscapes in January 2025. Its annual turnover is £48m.

Maple Stud Equestrian Centre, Cranleigh Road, Ewhurst, Cranleigh

WA/2023/01136 (3337539) – Erection of 4 dwellings, with associated parking and landscaping following demolition of existing outbuildings.

The appeal was lodged because the planning application was not determined within the given time. No surprise there, then!

However, Waverley Planners were concerned about the development’s effect on the setting of the Grade 11-listed Slythehurst Farm House.

It was once the home of the Rt Hon. Janet Kidd, daughter of Lord Beaverbrook, who lived there until her death. She spent many happy years there and at her home in Barbados.

Main Issues:

• whether the proposed site would provide a suitable location for four houses, having regard to the proximity of services and facilities; the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside;

• whether the proposal would preserve the setting of the Grade II listed building known as Slythehurst Farm House;

• the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to noise and disturbance, privacy and outlook;

• whether the proposal would provide an appropriate mix of housing to meet identified local needs and the proposal’s effect on biodiversity.

The Inspector’s Concluded :

Given the proximity of services and facilities, the proposed site would not be suitable for four houses and would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside.

The proposed development would not preserve the setting of the listed building known as Slythehurst Farm House.

The resulting harm to the building’s significance as a designated heritage asset would be less than substantial.

However, he concluded that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, particularly in terms of noise and disturbance.

Ewhurst Parish Council objected for the following reasons: i

The Parish’s Neighbourhood Plan, made in 2022, states explicitly that there is no requirement for further housing in Ewhurst, as the parish has far exceeded its quota of 100 houses.

To comply with the NPPF, any new building has to be within the settlement boundary. This site is some distance from the settlement boundary. It is also in the Countryside within the Green Belt, AGLV, and near ancient woodland.

The Neighbourhood Plan states that the undeveloped gap between Ewhurst and Cranleigh should be maintained.

 This development will overlook the other properties on the site on all sides, is overdevelopment, and threatens the rural aspect of the area.

The development will be close to a Grade II-listed building. There is no mains water, and there appears to be no plan for disposing of foul sewage.

The plans and the narrative are inaccurate: the red-lined area shows an area of less than 1000 metres. However, the narrative clarifies that the development will be over 1000 metres and thus eligible for affordable housing or a payment in lieu.

Access to the busy Ewhurst Cranleigh Road will be very difficult. The track is only single-width and very long. This will result in vehicles having to back onto the main road, where there are poor sight lines.

Oh dear – what can the matter be? Not everyone likes Farnham’s new lavatory.

 There has been some “modified rapture” about plans for a new toilet revamp on the Gostrey meadow.

Cllr White recently told a resident at the Farnham Town meeting who asked about the tendering process. 

 Saying: “Why does the block have to be so ugly?”

“We don’t want a white elephant… this could be a £500,000 project; it could be even more than that. At the moment, it’s not gone out to tender as that depends on the build system adopted. However, we want to make sure we put a building that is going to last. It will be a state-of-the-art convenience…”

 “We worked on the basis of volume.”

“It will look beautiful,” said  Cllr Mauluka.

 

Wates wants to Wing its way to Waverley to join the merry band of builders eager to concrete over more  Alfold farmland with 70 homes, despite the villagers’ outcry against it.

The cash register’s about to go Kerching once again for village farmers once Bridian Farmhouse is demolished in Sachel Court Drive. Or, in the case of Care Ashore, formerly The Merchant Seaman’s War Memorial Society, building just up the road for its charity.

Wates wants to join the long line of developers, including Bellway Homes, Cala Homes, Vistry Homes, Antler Homes, Thakeham Homes, and Abri Homes—could Sherlock be next?

Suffice it to say anyone who wants to build homes has their eagle eyes on Alfold—a once-little rural village on the Surrey/Sussex border that has been sacrificed on the altar of numerous Government Inspectors. Only a handful of houses have been allowed by Waverley Planners, despite the protestations of its MP Jeremy Hunt, who regularly blames Waverley for the overdevelopment of a village with little or no amenities. 

https://planning360.waverley.gov.uk:4443/w2webparts/Resource/Civica/Handler.ashx/Doc/pagestream?cd=inline&pdf=true&docno=9261782

Wates says it is consulting with Southern Water about flooding and water issues. However, Thames Water is the responsible authority!

 In February, a leaflet containing a feedback form was mailed to 402 properties. A sample of the feedback received from the public consultation can be viewed here. The developer revealed an example in its submission document. No names, no pack drill.

“Dear Sirs

Having received a notification of public consultation by post I am writing to express my objection to the development of up to 80 new homes on the aforementioned site. Alfold is a small village with very limited amenities and an infrastructure already groaning under the weight of the number of new developments that have sprung up in recent years. This is evidenced by the well publicised issues with sewage in the area in recent weeks. Any further developments will only exacerbate the issues more seriously not to mention the loss of green space in the area home to many endangered creatures such as owls and bats. And don’t get me started on the additional strains more development will place on the already horrendous A281 into Guildford. No more houses for Alfold thank you. I shall be strongly objecting to this development and any others that are put forward. Protect our villages!”

The Applicant claims it has endeavoured to conduct a consultation process to ensure the locals are properly informed of its Land West of Loxwood Road plans with access into Satchel our Drive. The site adjoins a huge acreage on which  Thakeham Homes has an option and where it intends to build another 400 homes. Or, more likely, flog off to another developer as it did previously following its successful appeal

Wates says  the following key themes were present throughout the feedback received:

Lack of amenities and overdevelopment: Comments raised concerns regarding the very limited amenities in Alfold despite the many new development proposals in recent years. Public transport: Some respondents commented on the lack of an active bus route through the village, with limited connectivity to key services and facilities. Sewage and drainage capacity and flood risk:

Respondents commented that the existing sewage and drainage network is currently at capacity and cannot cope with any further development in Alfold. Furthermore, it was noted that there are frequent flooding issues in the village, which may be exacerbated by further growth. Local infrastructure: Several respondents commented that the infrastructure in and around Alfold cannot cope with the current population, with specific reference to a lack of schools, GP surgery and shops, which may be made worse by additional development in the village. Traffic and access: Respondents claimed traffic through the village is already challenging.

Public transport: Some respondents commented on the lack of an active bus route through the village, with limited connectivity to key services and facilities. Sewage and drainage capacity and flood risk: Respondents commented that the existing sewage and drainage network is currently at capacity and cannot cope with any further development in Alfold. Furthermore, it was noted that there are frequent flooding issues in the village, which may be exacerbated by additional development.

Local infrastructure: Several respondents commented that the infrastructure in and around Alfold cannot cope with the current population, with specific reference to a lack of schools, GP surgery and shops, which may be made worse by additional development in the village. Traffic and access: Respondents claimed traffic through the village is challenging and would worsen with additional cars on the road network. In addition, one comment noted the entrance to the site cannot be via Sachel Court Drive as it is too close to Sweeters Field Road, which is too close to the blind corner on Loxwood Road eastbound.

The proposed housing density is in keeping with the other recent consents within the village. Lack of amenities As mentioned by the Inspector in the Appeal reference APP/R3650/W/21/3278196, Alfold has a reasonable range of services and facilities. Between Alfold & Alfold Crossways is a petrol and associated shop (M&S), a café & deli selling local groceries (The Alfold Larder), a post office, a local sports/ football club, a veterinary surgery and a small business centre. Compliance with the Alfold Neighbourhood Plan (January 2024) The Alfold Neighbourhood Plan fails to allocate any sites for new development. Waverley Borough Council, however, has a 1.28 Housing Land Supply and, as referenced in the supporting Planning Statement, is significantly undersupplying on affordable housing. The proposal will allow for deliverable housing.

A pre-development foul water capacity check has been undertaken with Southern Water, and Wates continues to work with them to understand the extent of the capacity shortfall and the steps Southern Water will take to reinforce its infrastructure. As per the supporting Flood Risk Assessment, the on-site sustainable drainage system (SuDs) will ensure surface water does not contribute to flooding within the village. This report also shows the site does not fall within an area of flood risk. Local infrastructure The planning application submission will contribute over £2 million to Waverley Borough Council in the form of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Council can spend this money at its discretion to invest in local infrastructure. There will also be S106 contributions that will likely provide further investment into local infrastructure improvements.

BEFORE

AFTER

 

 A Government Inspector has overturned Waverley Planners’ decision to allow development at Withybush Farm, Knowle Lane, Cranleigh. 

 

WA/2023/01639 (3345912) – Erection of 2 dwellings and carports with additional parking per dwelling and associated works

The development of two substantial homes has been allowed following demolishing existing commercial buildings (  WA/2022/02624) despite being refused by Waverley Planners and opposed by Cranleigh Parish Council.

Main Issues considered by the Inspector:

Whether the proposal would be a suitable location for housing, regarding the Council’s spatial strategy and the provisions of its Planning Framework.

Inspector’s Conclusion:

 I conclude that the development would conflict with SP1 and ST1 of the WLP1, DM9 and DM15 of the WLP2, and the relevant provisions of the Framework and would therefore conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole.

However, there are important material considerations, in particular, applying footnote 8 of the Framework, which indicates that planning permission should be granted, where there are benefits of providing housing in an area where that need is not currently being met. I have also identified other social, economic and environmental benefits. These material considerations outweigh the conflict with the development plan.

2. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal should be

ALLOWED