2,000 hits in just 10 days!

Waverley Web has been going just 10 days and already has quite a following – we reached 2,000 hits yesterday morning!

As explained on the Home page, the reason WW was born, is really quite simple – to inform local residents and other interested parties about what is really happening in the borough of Waverley – some people don’t want local residents to know what is really going on and our aim is to foil their plan

So far, most of your comments have been sent privately to contact@waverleyweb.org and we fully appreciate and respect the privacy of our contributors and pledge to continue doing so.

There has been much speculation about who is behind WW – several names have been bandied about and they are all so wide of the mark, we can’t make up our minds whether those behind the speculation are simply deluded or grasping at straws!

Our anonymity is as important to us, as it is to our contributors and for very good reasons. There are currently nine contributors to WW – some are ‘insiders’ and their positions are at stake, others are just ordinary members of the public, tired of being treated like mushrooms – kept in the dark and having buckets of manure regularly thrown over them by Waverley councillors. We are, quite simply, a small, but growing, group of people who care about the borough of Waverley.

Seasoned journalists are following us – as sadly, they too are constrained by their paymasters – many of whom live locally and are part of the establishment. For instance, the Chief Executive of Trinity Mirror, which owns the Surrey Advertiser, lives on the outskirts of Dunsfold. Sir Ray Tindle, owner of the Farnham and Haslemere Herald lives in the borough too.

Without the help and guidance of the public and its readers, WW will never succeed in its ambition to tell you everything you want to know.  Information is power to the people and there are a great many people out there, with a vested interest in ensuring you only know what they want you to know and no more.

So, do please keep in touch and let’s ensure that we all know what we really need to know..

Awfold… Alford… or could it be Alfold that developers are invading?

No-one seems quite sure how to spell the name of the Surrey/Sussex border village, but never mind, what’s in a name?

Horsham based developer, Thakeham Homes, is delighted that it’s been involved in Waverley’s ‘not-so-secret’ meetings. Its spokesman has said that it welcomes working with others on its 400 plus proposed homes in ‘Alford’… (Don’t get too hung up on the name of your village Alfold  – nobody gives a damn what its name is, only how much farmland can be plastered with concrete – the more the better.)

The spokesman continues:

“We welcome the opportunity to be involved with councillors”.  

Oh we bet you do! It certainly helps that one of those borough councillors, the former member for Alfold, also happens to be a Trustee of The Springbok Charity, that owns the site that you want to develop – there’s a bit of luck!

He continues to say how delighted the company is:

“to work with other developers to discuss ways for the local authorities and developers to deliver these vital homes and infrastructure”.

Vital to whom? The Springbok Charity which has declared it will go under, if planning permission is turned down. This is the same charity that invited villagers to “be a part of our charitable community” but when one tried recently, and dared to say she did not support more than doubling the size of the small village, was told in no uncertain terms, not to come again! How very charitable of them…

Who else has jumped on the Alfold bandwagon? Surrey County Council no less – it has bought Linden Farm, opposite the Craft Centre in Loxwood Road, with access off  Rosemary Lane. What for? To build homes for 10 disabled adults. All on the site of the old pig stys, on which development has been turned down on numerous occasions by WBC and Inspectors at appeal. Not sure that SCC will have too much of a battle twisting Waverley’s arm – Hey ho here we go AWFOLD…



Martin BamfordThe u-turn experienced by one Cranleigh resident can only be compared to the biblical one. A huge supporter of The Cranleigh Society, local businessman, Martin Bamford (a Chartered Financial Planner and a Certified Financial Planner) has had a complete change of heart. He thinks the Civic Society is a bunch of women with too much time on their hands – should they all be in their pinnies  in the ‘Great British Bake Off’ Martin? He also appears to think they are among the NIMBY’s who don’t want more homes in Cranleigh or anywhere else for that matter.

Martin – just because you have jumped on the developers’ bandwagon; put your name forward as a possible trustee of one scheme to give the Knowle Park land to the village and brought the Chamber of Commerce to heel on behalf of the same developer, (who now owns a major village retail store according to the press) – you wouldn’t forget all your past principals and sell your soul would you now?

Just in case you’ve forgotten, here’s what you said just a year ago:
(have a little read just to remind yourself)

“Building on Cranleigh’s green field is causing much consternation. Beautiful fields prone to flooding. Leaving aside the environmental concerns, villagers are concerned about the impact on local infrastructure. Instead of mass developments on green fields, developers and local authorities should be proposing and supporting plans on brown field sites. We can keep voicing our concerns and suggesting viable alternatives to ‘crazy planning applications’ which would decimate green field space and exacerbate already serious flooding risks.”

Fast forward to January 2015, commenting on his blog, about a meeting he is hosting for local MP Anne Milton:

“Clearly not everyone in the room agreed that more affordable housing is needed, especially those that say no to everything and would prefer to see all new housing directed at Dunsfold Park. For my own part I continue to support the Knowle Park Initiative, as I believe they have brought forward the best proposal for the village.”

Oh come on Martin… in August 2014, you were calling for the protection of green fields (especially those that flood) and encouraging the owners of brown field sites to come forward. Roll on January 2015 and you have changed your tune and done a complete volte face, by deciding that the green fields should be built on – particularly those that flood and cause flooding…

We at WW are almost, but not quite speechless… What a hypocrite! What’s in it for you Martin? Free lettuces for life..?

PS. Just in case you didn’t know – the Civic Society is not opposing all development, they just want to make sure it is in the right place, doesn’t ruin Cranleigh and homes don’t end up deep in flood water.

A blog post, posted on the 13th August 2014 by Martin Bamford, reads as follows:
(Update 26 October 2015: it now seems to have mysteriously disappeared into the ether!)

Following rumours that a BBC film crew were lurking in Cranleigh High Street yesterday afternoon, a short film has appeared this morning on the BBC News website.

The two-minute clip is worth watching if you’re a local resident or business owner, or if you live in another village threatened by greenfield development.

By way of background, Cranleigh is (technically) a village, nestled at the foot of the Surrey Hills between Guildford and Horsham. According to the latest Census, the civil parish of Cranleigh has a population of close to 11,500 people. We have a bustling High Street, on which Informed Choice is based, along with three supermarkets, five pubs, a variety of restaurants and cafes, many independent retailers and (some would say too many) charity shops.

The village of Cranleigh has changed a great deal since we moved here in the early 1980’s. Gone is the Regal Cinema, several pubs, one of the petrol stations, Village Video and more recently Blockbuster Video, and (not during my lifetime) the railway station. So Cranleigh has changed dramatically over the past thirty years. 
There have been several new housing developments around the village and currently there are plans, either submitted or about to be submitted, for several more. It is these proposals, all of which are on green field sites, which are causing such consternation among local residents.

Berkeley Homes have submitted proposals to build up to 425 homes on the green fields south of Stocklund Square (pictured), just off the High Street. This is a beautiful set of fields, prone to flooding, with access onto tiny country lanes. Another development at Amlets Park is proposing up to 150 homes, on green fields right at the foot of the Surrey Hills, another site prone to flooding and with access onto country lanes whiter in a poor state. 

Other developers have put forward plans at exhibitions for as many as 325 more homes at two other sites, behind the High Street and off Horsham Road. Leaving aside the obvious environmental concerns, the local residents we have spoken to about these proposals have big concerns about the impact on local infrastructure.

Building more homes, whether on green or brown field sites, means more people putting pressure on health care services, schools, water and the roads. Without a rail link to Guildford and London, people living in Cranleigh are left with little choice but to drive for work.

Driving the 9 miles from Cranleigh to Guildford during rush hour in the morning can often take an hour or longer, because the A281 through villages like Bramley and Shalford cannot take the weight of existing traffic, let along another 1,000 or more commuters. With thousands of additional residents in Cranleigh, getting an appointment to see a GP or a primary school place would become more of a Herculean task than it currently is.

Imagine what extra demands these new homes would place on an already creaking water and electricity supply in the village; every winter in living memory we have had lengthy power cuts and water supply problems. This is not to say that we are opposed to change and growth; in fact, we support it.

What is particularly needed is affordable housing for first-time buyers and homes of a size which reflect the reality of how families live today; more one and two bedroom properties, not five bedroom McMansions.

This development needs to be gradual, rather than a village like Cranleigh to have 400, 500 or 900 new homes dumped on its greenfield sites in a short space of time. Instead of mass development on sensitive greenfield sites, developers and the local authorities should be proposing and supporting plans to identify brownfield sites each of which could accommodate a couple of new properties, and add these to the village gradually year on year.

Local brownfield sites, such as Dunsfold Park, should be used to take the pressure for new housing off villages like Cranleigh, assuming any large-scale developments threefold with all of the required infrastructure to make them self-sufficient and address the road capacity problems associated with the A281. Of course, sensible as this sounds, it won’t happen.

Cranleigh doesn’t have a ‘Local Plan’ yet, so developers will no doubt find a way to weasel past local politicians and get their plans approved at a national level.

Of the four greenfield site proposals currently in motion for Cranleigh, we believe two-thirds of the proposed housing, around 600 properties, will eventually be built – it would not surprise us if the Dunsfold Park development then proceeds, throwing a further several hundred (or more) houses into the local mix.

Until then, we can keep voicing our concerns and suggesting viable alternatives to crazy planning applications which would decimate green spaces and exacerbate already serious flooding risks.

Be careful of taking his advice – he just might change it!


money_poundsHave you ever put coins into the car park machines in Waverley’s off street car parks, but received no change?

Well, that has happened quite regularly, in fact more often than you would think.  Go on – just guess how much the borough council, who we will now refer to as ‘The BIG DICK’ has collected, in what they describe as ‘over-vending’ in the council’s pay & display car parks. Still guessing?  A thousand pounds did I hear… A little ‘freedom of information request’ later, and this is what we discovered…

£81,205.00 !!!
Yes, you read that right…
£81,205.00 (in the year 2012/13)

Well, that’s not a bad little earner! And how did the council spend it, you ask?

“All the funds from the car park services help to fund car park improvements, and help pay for other council services”.

We suggest you pop down to the Burys and ask for your change back!