Whilst lazing on our sunbeds – (sorry to all our readers over there in Blustury Blighty because we hear you are having atrocious silly season weather) – but we noticed on the web a little missive from the new ‘Chair’ of Godalming Town Council.

– ‘Abolition of town councillors robes and restoration of open public speaking at town council sessions.’

We have already posted on the abolition of the mayoral robes –The new brooms getting to grips with Godalming.

However, a subsequent sentence in a message to residents from GTC’s Chair Paul Follows took us by surprise…

‘restoration of open public speaking at town council sessions.’

RESTORATION OF PUBLIC SPEAKING! Really? Are we to gather from that statement that the previous administrators of Godalming Town Council didn’t allow their residents the democratic right to actually speak at town council meetings?  If not, why not? Even in the smallest villages in the borough, the public is given an opportunity to speak, ask questions, make comments, to their elected representatives. Some even call councillors to account. So what in the name of open and transparent government has been going on in Godalming for? years?

Oh well – enough of Waverley matters and back to the beach bar.

Perhaps it is not ‘Your Waverley’ that should be listening to the public outcry about oil and gas exploration proposed in Dunsfold – but the Surrey numpties – who could find themselves going the same way as Waverley councillors next year.

Having listened very carefully to residents and groups from Surrey & Sussex, Waverley Council’s new administration has registered its objections:  

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

However, it appears that the Surrey numpties who have just declared a climate emergency are speaking with forked tongue. Here’s ‘YW’s Listening Exercise Chairman’s view on the latest missive from his county council colleague – whose kee-jerk response leaves us here at the WW spinning with indignation in our web.

Is it too much to hope that our county councillors will start listening to their constituents? 

Because if they don’t it could home to haunt them sooner than they think!

 As for you Mr Mike Goodman, the electorate might be wiping that smile off your face anytime soon? Because how bloody dare you say: – “although you (WBC) have chosen to consult with the public in this way it is not a formal part of the County’s consultation or decision-making process in respect of this proposal.”

In other words: You will do what you damned well like despite local objection including that of Waverey Borough Council – the democratically elected body with whom you are duty-bound to consult!

Your arrogance is legendary.

Sad souls, that we are – what better way to while away a few hours on our holiday sunbeds than peruse – The Cranleigh Village Neighbourhood Plan?

Not easy trawling through a very long document on the parish council website with a Mojito in one hand and a chocolate-covered burrito in the other! 

We digress! You really don’t want to know what a lovely time we are having.

Here’s a little something that perhaps villagers should read and inwardly digest.

Perhaps the parish council might consider doing another survey with a question along the lines of:

Do you want the High Street clogged up with even more traffic for an 80-bed private care home and 20 community beds with patients from anywhere in Surrey? Together with a hostel of 26 bedsits for health workers (yes, you guessed,  from anywhere in Surrey?  All on land you once owned?

Sorry, have to finish the drink and mop up the chocolate sauce and bake the other side? Happy holidays to all our readers.

 Roses and Ranunculus, Delphiniums and Daisies, Lupins and Lilies and an abundance of high-end cut flowers will not be blooming at a budding new business thanks to ‘Your Waverley’s’ planners.

Has been’s.

What might have been! 

The Southern Area Planning committee has REFUSED to allow applicants on land owned by the Countryside Restoration Trust to set up six polytunnels in which to grow flowers on agricultural land in the green belt.

 Seventeen letters of objection from residents and insufficient information from the applicants about the “modest” enterprise was enough to wilt councillors’ enthusiasm for the project.

Although objectors argued the development in the countryside should not be allowed, the applicants argued –

where else would you set up a small-scale agricultural type business other than – in the countryside?

Residents, including neighbours, claimed there would be a loss of their “visual amenities” in other words, their views of the countryside.

Perhaps they should consider themselves fortunate? Most of our views are presently being obliterated by bricks walls, some of them 3-storeys high.

The applicants claim the proposed development was  “modest” and flowers needed the protection of polytunnels to cope with the vagaries of the British climate and every effort had been made to site them as far away as possible from neighbours. Hedges would be planted along with a swathe of wildflowers.

Officers explained the produce would be for local and London florists, florists through a wholesaler visiting once a day and would employ two full-time local people and some casual labour during the flowering season This would produce minimal traffic.

However,  neighbours think differently and listed a host of concerns including the poor access, dangers on Green Lane for cars, pedestrians and horse-riders. The poly-tunnels would cause light pollution (despite the fact there would be no lighting) would reflect sunlight and could attract thieves.

No attempt had been made by the applicant to address their concerns and there was no provision for a workshop, washrooms or toilets. No provision had been made for composting, recycling or general waste. And, no provision for storage of chemicals and fuel.

However, the applicants maintained…

Despite officers supporting the business, they received a few veiled slaps on the wrists for not ensuring Surrey highways provided robust traffic information.

The Waverley Web couldn’t help wondering when did SCC highways ever provide “robust traffic information?”

Officers should not have advised applicants to put in three separate planning applications, each for two poly-tunnels, six in total –  to save the applicant planning fees!  And, for supporting an application with insufficient detailed information. 

Oh dear! Waverley’s CEO is going to get a letter from Cllr Robert Knowless (who thinks he knows more)  asking him why the applicant was advised by officers of ways to save money when Waverley’s planning function was running at a 60% loss!

Ye Gods! Planning Officers trying to give a helping hand to get an embryo local business off the ground – perish the thought!

The scrappy voting procedure on three identical applications, which was almost impossible to hear or understand, was 4 votes in favour, 4 votes against and one abstention so were ALL REFUSED  on Chairman “Oh dear” Beaman’s casting vote.

That is the dilemma facing residents of the eastern villages as they face the fact that they are NEVER going to get the new replacement village hospital and day hospital they were promised almost 20 years ago.

The meeting decided with a couple of votes against and one abstention that…

• A. They want the land held by the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust returned to the parish.
• B.  They want Waverley Planners to refuse to allow a Care Home to built on parish land – together with a hostel.
• They want the existing old Cranleigh Hospital and its Day Hospital to be improved – together with a minor injuries unit and other services.

Residents from Alfold, Dunsfold, Ewhurst and Cranleigh learned it was crunch time – with an application for an 80-bed Care Home including 20 community beds and 26 health worker bedsits due to be determined by Waverley Planners in September. The scheme was to have been considered in August. But it was postponed after pressure from councillors. 

Is the ‘Silly Season’ just about to get a whole lot sillier – at ‘Your Waverley.’ UPDATED.

The WW understands that a public meeting was held last Saturday and despite only being given a few days notice a crowd of 50 turned up to the village hall.

A panel headed by Alfold resident Andy Webb announced he had been vilified for daring to hold the meeting at all.

Residents were faced with … an empty chair emblazoned with the name  – CRANLEIGH VILLAGE HOSPITAL TRUST.  As, they heard that for the second time in under six months, it was ‘no show’ by the charity, to answer their urgent questions.

A string of speakers – who we will not name for fear of reprisals – described the 20-year long and complex history of a dream for a replacement new hospital and day hospital in Cranleigh which had now turned into the nightmare of a £14m 60-bed private care home and 20-community beds to benefit  a region much larger than that originally proposed. A development which would include 26 bedsits for care workers from the locality – but which would bring in no community benefit in either Community Infrastructure Levy – or 106 monies to mitigate for the scheme.

Waverley Council’s Deputy leader Paul Follows heard residents including many donors ask…

WHY:

• The parish council had taken part in a land exchange with a so-called ‘local benefactor” for a £1 without getting a mandate from villagers first?
• Why had it exchanged land for £1 which had been valued by the District Valuer for £250,000?
• Why didn’t the parish council receive Best Value?
• Why hadn’t the council abided by an agreement with the charity to take the land back, when the project had not taken place after the agreed five years?
• Why had it agreed to a Ransome strip around a football pitch, which was part of the land swap?
• Former Cranleigh parish councillor Ken Reed shocked everyone when he revealed that he had not been made aware of such an onerous restriction on the football pitch.

“I was not aware, such a restriction existed, and I would have objected if I had known.” 

Villagers asked…the empty chair where had £1.4m of their money gone?

• What was the model of care and who would occupy the community beds?
• Where were the promised Day Hospital and other facilities – including a minor injuries unit and outpatients facilities? Why were villagers faced with something that had morphed into a completely different concept than that they had backed with their cash and voluntary efforts?
• What lease did the charity have with the private operator – which was heavily in debt (circa £800,000,000) and up for sale?

A former CVHT Trustee Kay Newman attempted to explain the original vision for the project and how numerous changes in the health sector had affected its progression.

Money raised had been used in a variety of ways including the creation of the Bruce Mackenzie football field and changes to the highway in Knowle Lane. Although she was no longer a trustee having resigned almost 10 years ago, she had heard from the solicitor for CVHT that the operator (HC-One) would receive a 150-year lease on the building and would pay £1m towards the hostel block. He had given assurances that if the present operator failed, another would take over. She also assured everyone that the charity would hold a public meeting together with its stakeholder partners – once planning permission was granted. She said although the organisers had asked residents to address their questions to the empty chair, CVHT would make the model of care and other matters clearer once planning permission had been granted.

She apologised to the many donors, for the part she and her husband, the former chairman, for the disappointment of not getting what everyone had originally hoped for, a new Cranleigh Hospital and Day Hospital.

 Ewhurst resident Diane James said from what she had heard the Charity was either guilty of fraud or negligence and asked whether it was possible to seek an injunction to stop the development?

A letter was read out from Rtd GP John Verdon; former nurses spoke of their concerns, and one resident asked why the land appeared in the charity accounts at £2.4m when there was no planning consent, saying we are being misled.

Some believed the 20 community beds were merely a minor replacement for 56 beds lost due to the closure of Longfields a Surrey County Council home now derelict. The Waverley warden-assisted accommodation of 58 flats and seven old people’s bungalows had also been also lost to the community’s elderly.

Everyone agreed, with a few exceptions who believed a bad deal was better than no deal, arguing the 20 beds were needed, that it was now time to look forward not back and that a petition should call for the application to be refused. The land should be returned to the village and every effort should be made to support new and existing services offered by Cranleigh League of Friends at the old cottage hospital.

Others believed the Charity Commission should be contacted as a matter of urgency, as Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust was not giving residents what they had promised.

They said:

“We are getting a raw deal – a valuable asset of this community is being taken over by big business – and if we have to join together to seek legal redress, then let’s all put some money towards doing just that.”