Hypocrisy or what? You couldn’t Adam and Eve it could you? The Tory parliamentary candidate for Guildford, Cranleigh and villages commenting on closing tax avoidance loopholes?
So what happened next you may ask? The Godalming hustings took place – mainly, as you would expect for residents of Godalming and the surrounding area, but was ambushed by ‘a bunch of hyenas’ – as one new Godalming residents described the Tory contingent. Do we smell panic in the Tory ranks?
So who crammed themselves into the front row so they could have a go at the Lib Dems and Labour, no prizes for guessing?
The usual toxic group led by Julia Potts (who was forced to land like a Spring cuckoo and throw her deputy Ged Hall out of the nest, because her Farnham seat in the May polls was doomed.) Is it a bird? Is it a bee? No, it’s Potty parachuting into Tilford.
Denise Le Gal – who was well and truly routed from her Farnham sinecure and who seems to retain an almost unique ability to re-write history. Her penultimate appearance as mayor of Waverley was of-the-never-to-be forgotten-variety as she referred to Tories who never turned up, were paid, and thrown out of the council as – “CHINOS’ ‘Councillors here In Name Only’ – and actually thought it was funny.
Waverley Mayor has the GALL to joke about councillor non-attendance
Peter Martin – who thankfully at times still manages to behave like a gentleman – Judith & Chris Storey – attending their second husting in the hope they can slay the dragon and give both opposition candidates a damn good drubbing, but failed, miserably and Anne Gray who failed in May, and David Hunter who is still smarting from being ousted. Payback time had truly arrived! And, they all looked as happy as pigs in the proverbial.
Obviously too busy playing keyboard warrior on Facebook to attend, good old Aunty Elsie, aka Jenny Else made up for her absence by firing up her keyboard from the depths of Elstead in a bid to take aim at Follows and fire up the voting fodder.
Do these TTwits honestly believe that they will win votes and influence people by their disgraceful behaviour- obviously, both ours and others’ comments about toxicity in politics was lost on all of them?
Here’s just a small sample of what the public thought.
Said Paul Follows after the meeting.
How very sad, that Cllr Else is so insensitive, that she cannot even recognise how rude she, and everyone was to Farnham Residents Cllr Jerry Hyman when he arrived at Planet Waverley?
As for Paul Follows, he was a pariah from the moment he stepped onto the Waverley stage and was treated as such? The fear in the whites of their eyes was palpable among Tory-controlled Waverley when it was joined by a young, professional extremely bright, intelligent and personable young man sitting among a bunch of has-beens, so far past their sell-by date, some can no longer even speak succinctly. Why? Because not only in opposition did he ask questions, he expected answers, just like so many of the rest us Waverley residents who have been ignored by the TT’s for years.
Be careful, be very careful who you throw stones at Cllr Else. -Ye who we are told by a retired officer presided over an absolute DISAAASTER as Craig Greville Horwood would describe your efforts on a Cultural Strategy that wasted thousands of pounds of taxpayers money and had us all laughing in the corridors at Waverley Towers. The very same councillor who, we are told, has done more to damage the services to the elderly in Waverley than anyone else has managed in its history.
So…you no longer even recognise when you are being rude, mean and spiteful to a young man? Now that really is a worry, Aunty! What a shame you cannot emulate the civilised and gentlemanly behaviour of your husband in the council chamber. Don’t you see how damaging your attitude is when the public is watching the webcast? Thankfully, other Tories – including Kevin Deanus, Stephen Mulliner and Liz Townsend and others did not leave their manners behind in the members’ cloakroom. OOps! we forgot – LT has become an Independent!
The Surrey Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) is calling on candidates for the county’s 11 parliamentary seats to endorse the charity’s “Manifesto for Surrey”.
Andy Smith, CPRE branch director, says they are “calling on candidates of all political parties and groups to pledge to defend the environment and heritage of our county”.
The manifesto sets out a series of commitments:
Mr Smith added: “The future of our environment and quality of life is at stake, and at this critical time, as the candidates seek our votes in this General Election, we need all candidates and parties to affirm their support for a clean, green Surrey.”
This article is based on a CPRE Surrey press release.
This is a message that Waverley Borough Council Deputy leader Paul Follows posted on his Facebook page earlier this week.
Here at the Waverley Web, we too have had a few very unpleasant remarks made about the Parliamentary Candidate standing in the South West Surrey constituency against Jeremy Hunt. Thankfully, we can remove them before they go into the comments box, and sometimes, after. However, some keyboard warriors appear to think they can insult at will.
Some people seem to believe that the Conservatives have some sort of given right to hold both the SW Surrey and the Guildford & Cranleigh seats in Parliament – and that the voting fodder is just that, fodder. Residents to be wooed every few years and then dropped once they start to concentrate on the bigger picture and secure a seat at Westminster.
What the residents of Waverley would like to see is a little more emphasis on local issues.
Cranleigh’s Community Board has been fizzing ever since Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee refused Cranleigh Village Hospital and HC-1’s scheme to build an 80-bed care home and a staff hostel on a site once owned by villagers in Knowle Lane.
Judging by the e-mail messages we have received – and the on-line squabbling, it appears now the dust is settling the blame game has begun. Perhaps even an appeal against the decision has begun too?
So, perhaps our readers and our many correspondents over there in the eastern villages, could enlighten us – on who comes top of the poll in the pin the tail on the p/rat game?
Cranleigh’s very own Batty Bamford, purported to be a local businessman, has blamed the parish council spokesperson, the editor of the Cranleigh Community Board and a young villager who was presumably asked to present the petition and speak up for objectors.
Waverley has been blamed by another supporter who fired off e-mails all over the country, for “dragging its feet.” Others are claiming it was the planning officers, the councillors and presumably the office cat? Oh, yes we almost forgot. The Trust’s planning consultants – Tetlow King blames Facebook and The Waverley Web. As if any seriously minded planner or officer would take one jot of notice of anything we say, dream on!
Others claim it was the Trust’s fault – for not providing villagers what it said on the tin. They dug deep into their pockets and bank accounts for a hospital and day hospital, for their use, and were offered a Private Care Home and accommodation block, to be shared by, what appeared to them, for anyone, any-time, anywhere.
We would like to hear from anyone else out there who would like to name anyone else they would like to blame for what has become a toxic chapter in Cranleigh’s history? contact@waverleyweb.com
After a short hiatus, when members of the Joint Planning Committee were told the applicant had sought a deferment, which was promptly refused by majority vote – Due to Chairman Richard Cole’s role, on Cranleigh Parish Council’s planning committee he felt unable to consider the application with “an open mind,” and left. His deputy David Beaman took the chair.
Cranleigh councillors were not alone in their opposition to a development which has been eagerly awaited for a year. During which time public meetings have been held by objectors, petitions containing over 5,000 signatures raised by Alfold resident Andy Webb. Due to Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust refusal to meet the public who backed them, the mood of objectors grew darker by the day. Three Cranleigh councillors have been verbally attacked in the street by one of its Trustees, a former parish councillor, as a result – the public mood worsened.
Outlining the scheme officer Patrick Arthurs explained why officers concluded that the development in an ASVI – an Area of Strategic Visual Importance – was unacceptable and should be REFUSED. The development would damage the intrinsic character and beauty of countryside beyond the Green Belt, and the impact of the scale and mass of large buildings – a care home/20 community beds and a 26-unit health worker building- must be proportionate to the impact for the principle to be considered acceptable. Harm must be balanced against benefit.
He said previous consents obtained by the charity had lapsed ...
.. the scheme before members was significantly larger and, despite the benefit of community beds did not outweigh the harm the whole development would cause. There was no formal agreement with stakeholders, including Surrey County Council that the community beds would remain in perpetuity. Neither was there any definite evidence of the catchment area it would serve.
This was confirmed in person later by a representative of the Surrey Integrated Care Partnership.
Cllr Patricia Ellis, who called in the application, claimed Cranleigh residents would be “prioritised” She argued the health sector had changed since the original concept of a hospital and day hospital was mooted. She then applauded the superb outpatient, X-Ray, physiotherapy and podiatry and other services now being offered in the old cottage hospital.
There were many excellent nursing homes in and around Cranleigh, but most were “very expensive,” Her claim that the site was accessible to car parks and good public transport was later contradicted by Cllr Paul Follows, who said he relied on public transport every time he visited Cranleigh, and public transport was anything but accessible!
Cllr Gerry Hyman questioned why no Community Infrastructure Levy was charged and why couldn’t he find all the viability statements? He objected to such a huge building, and, against a background of laughter from councillors and the public gallery, said couldn’t understand why there was no highway objection in such a congested road?
Speaking for Cranleigh Parish Council Rowena Tyler said the council had supported the delivery of a Hospital and Day Hospital. The Charity had witnessed the council’s unanimous refusal of this commercial scheme for a profit-making organisation and its reasons for doing so were based on strong planning grounds. The land transfer had included a covenant, and the council had believed the beds would be for the Cranleigh communities use, not for the whole of Surrey. It could not support the hostel, which combined with the 80-bed care home was totally inappropriate overdevelopment in an ASVI. A 1.8metre fence, she argued, would be of no benefit to the community.
Villager Kathy Plank spoke for the 5,000 people who had written in and signed the petition she held. She described the huge fundraising efforts to build a replacement hospital and day hospital; There wasn’t a man, woman or child a business, school or organisation who hadn’t proudly displayed the CVHT logo as they swam, sang, cycled played cricket, football; held tea and bridge parties, and enjoyed the 60th Anniversary D-Day Concert; all of which produced over £1.4m in 10 years. Many bankers orders were made out and money jars filled – and the coffers of the Charity coffers had grown. Legacies were left in Wills.
Alfold Cllr Kevin Deanus lambasted the scheme, saying there were eight good policy reasons for refusing it. First, it came in with a scheme for 2,400 sqm then 4,000 sqm (lapsed) and then 6,180 sqm, a 48% increase – if they had wanted to squeeze any more onto this site they would have needed a crowbar. I will object.
Farnham’s Carole Cockburn said she would be opposing it on its sheer mass and scale.
By the time Cranleigh Cllr Liz Townsend flipped on her microphone, the fate of the scheme was signed and sealed. She registered her concern that SCC only made block bookings of beds for one-year, and the CCG for five years, and reiterated others concerns on the impact on the ASVI.
Not a problem said Cllr Anna James. The borough needed – lots of old people’s homes, and if there were lots of beds in the private care home that weren’t required, then the county council could have even more. Cllr Ellis agreed, if Cranleigh people didn’t want the beds they could be filled by others from elsewhere. However, Cllr Brain Edmonds said: “Well, I certainly wouldn’t want a bed in that home!”
Cllr Jackie Keen believed, although the county council may get the beds it needs, Cranleigh would get all the traffic and yet more development.
Deputy Leader Cllr Paul Follows: wondered what would happen to the community beds if Surrey County Council’s money ran out? What happens when they cannot afford them – will they go into private use? And, I have a real issue with student dormitories, being described as “affordable homes.’
After the vote 15 against, five for and one abstention. The committee went on to consider an application by Surrey County Council to build 91 homes on two school sites in Parsonage Road and off Church lane, Cranleigh was also refused. The subject of another post.
A link to the webcast.
Background notes.
The benefits by way of 20 community beds, 60 private nursing beds and affordable health worker accommodation are not sufficient to outweigh the (visual) harm and adverse (landscape) impacts. It is therefore recommended that permission is refused.
Access opposite Berkeley Homes.
OBJECTIONS
The 2005 outline planning permission for a replacement community hospital and health-centre (WA/2003/1778) permitted a building with a footprint of approximately 2,400 sqm (18% of the site area), total floor area of development 4174.65 sqm, with parking for 48 cars, accessed by means of a new access from Knowle Lane (indicative site layout and elevation shown below). A key feature of this proposal is that development would only have occupied the southern half of the site, with the remainder being left undeveloped to provide a spacious landscaped setting for the development. The permission was not implemented.
This was followed by an application in 2006 (WA/2006/0095) for reserved matters, this time in the form of a 3 storey building, with a footprint of 2,180 sqm, but again spaciously situated within the site (16% of site area), and occupying roughly two-thirds of the southern part of the site, with the balance being left as open-space and parking.
There are significant differences between what has previously been proposed and permitted and what is now proposed under the current proposals in terms of the content of the development proposed.
Firstly, previous proposals for the site envisaged the provision of a health- centre, alongside the community hospital. This was not supported by the NHS and led to the development of an alternative health-care strategy, which involved the development of the new health centre in Cranleigh High Street and the upgrade of the former community hospital, to provide an enhanced diagnostic service.
The health centre is, therefore, no longer part of the current proposals because it has already been provided elsewhere.
The question to be addressed, therefore, is whether the large amount of “other” development that is also proposed alongside the community beds would be excessive, unjustified and beyond what is necessary or desirable to deliver the community beds.
It is also necessary to be clear as to the nature of the benefit to the community that will accrue by the provision of these beds.
The provision of the private nursing-beds could also, arguably, be a benefit to the community but whether 60-bed spaces are justified is another matter. A view, therefore, needs to be taken on this important issue too.
Likewise, it needs to be considered whether the provision of health-worker accommodation sought has a benefit to the community and, even if it does, in
Page 26
the principle, whether the amount of development sought is justified, in terms of it being necessary to ensure the deliverability of the scheme.
The qualifying criteria that patients must meet to be a priority for occupancy of one of the community beds have not been set. The applicant has confirmed that the criteria will be developed with the ICP and this could include a matrix of medical need combined with distance home address is from the new facility.
Residents of the new nursing home will have a range of medical conditions from dementia to end of life care. A patient could start off in need of medical treatment, provided at one of the local hospitals, which then develops into a need for nursing care or end of life care, which might be provided by the occupancy of one of the community beds. The community bed allocation criteria will reflect this range of need and health considerations.
The commitment of the CCG cannot be guaranteed beyond 5 years. This raises the important issue of what might happen to the community beds after 5 years; whether they will still be available to the community, for what purpose and through what mechanism
the nature of the benefit to the community and the extent to which it can be relied upon for the future remains unclear.
Surrey County Council, as social care provider, needs a supply of affordable nursing home provision, within its guide price range, to meet the needs of SCC funded nursing-home residents on a long term basis and, therefore, welcomes the provision of the nursing-home beds proposed, which it sees as helping to meet local needs through the Integrated Care Partnership.
It is proposed to provide two links from the site to the Downs Link bridleway; one to the north of the site and one to the southeast. These will facilitate trips to and from the surrounding area via the Downs Link, including to Cranleigh Village Community Hospital and Cranleigh Medical Centre.
First Up – is the 80 bed-Private Care Home including 20-community beds – that 270 people have been eagerly awaiting and over 5,000 people have objected to. Villagers have Cllr Patricia Ellis to thank for calling it in after officers decided to refuse the scheme under powers delegated to them. She will no doubt claim that she has been prompted into doing so due to the huge local support for the scheme? Let us all hope that a few declarations of interest are registered? Perhaps even the odd financial detail missing from the report? Ah, well we can live in hopes for some transparency on this toxic development which, thanks to a charity’s duplicity, has divided a once, happy and cohesive community.
Now in an e-mail sent to us by one of its supposed supporters, guess who the Charity is blaming for the delay of an application which has been languishing at Waverley Towers for a year? Yes, you guessed… YOUR WAVERLEY – which has been dragging its feet!
Is this Cranleigh’s Brightwells? Because it has a fair few things in common with the shenanigans going on in our town. Using public land; public buildings; public money; the council claims were all being used for the benefit of the community, a community whose 10,000 residents opposed the redevelopment of East Street? Going as far as petitioning HM The Queen to allow our town to declare its Independence from ‘Your Waverley.’ Let us hope Cranleigh gets a better outcome?
Is Wife of Brian being supported by Son of Bainbridge?
Following: Along comes a shedload of new homes proposed by Surrey County Council, (91 – probably more when it comes to the details) because unless they can sell the land in order to generate £9m for the site which presently houses a Church of England Middle School and an Infants School just a hop, skip and a jump away – they cannot build replacement new schools on Glebelands School’s playing fields in Parsonage Road. Who needs playing fields anyway when the development gets an all-weather pitch, partially paid for by Berkeley Homes and originally intended for “community use? Why don’t SCC have enough money, we hear you cry?
Because of its reckless investments in retail development in places such as here in Farnham’s Blightwells Development.
Will ‘Your Waverley’ be shaken and stirred by the shocking revelations on Blightwells?
The Treasury has clamped down on local authority borrowing amidst fears that reckless investments could bankrupt local councils. Borrowing which was hiked up by one percentage point last week. It is now at its highest level for four years. Some claim the move will put many capital projects at risk.
Surrey County Council says the school expansion is necessary and places are badly-needed for the 2,800 homes proposed at Dunsfold Garden village, the existing and expanding populations of Rudgwick, Cranleigh, Ewhurst, Alfold, Dunsfold, Shamley Green and Wonersh for the further two thousand homes consented, some of which are now under construction.
Then follows the new Knowle Park Initiative Country Park.
This will provide leisure space for all the new homes. Almost three hundred of which are being provided for the “people of Cranleigh” by developers and park owners- Nick and Rowena Vrijland – better known as the “Flying Dutchman” because most of the time he flies by the seat of his well-worn developer pants.
The man who says he “wants to give back to the people of Cranleigh” whilst trousering a very nice little windfall for himself, has already built homes on part of the parklands he wants to conserve. WW hopes the planners at Waverley ensure they tie him up in knots on his 106 legal agreements. Including the use of his very-wide bridleway which joins up with his “emergency access” at the other end? Having pulled the wool over the very blind eyes of Waverley Planners in the past many wonders If Knowle Park will become KPI – Phase 3.
The meeting starts at 6.30pm.
If I’m not careful that young upstart who is leading Waverley Borough Council may be stepping into my well-worn shoes. Shoes that are far too big for him to fill? After all, I am a sitting tenant in the SW Surrey seat. I am an entrepreneur, former Secretary of State for Health, Foreign Secretary, local Landlord, etc…
Ok, so I am 33, I studied at the University of Surrey live in Godalming and lead the Town Council and deputy leader of Waverley Council. I commute to Guildford to work for BAE Systems Applied Intelligence on Surrey research park (covering Standards, legal compliance and ethical conduct). I enjoy travelling, cricket and ice hockey and I am a Tenor in the Guildford Choral Society.
As an aside, another motivation for my getting into politics has been my parents. My father is a retired soldier and my mother is an HLTA at a Guildford School. Both have had cancer in the last 5 years and survived – largely due to fantastic NHS staff – and so access to these services and providing for health services locally is a big deal for me personally. Equally an affinity for the teaching and defence professions is something built into me.
Unfortunately, the Waverley Web couldn’t attend the event at The Farnham Maltings, because football and football practice got in the way! Oh, well – boys will be boys.
However, suffice to say our inbox has been groaning under the weight of congratulatory messages from some of those who attended. It cannot have been attended by only members of The Green Party and the Liberal Democrats, can it? Surely not. We would love to hear from the local Tories to give their spin on all things General Election SWS 2019? Don’t be shy.
Want to learn more about the Tory’s chosen one – Angela Richardson?
Anne Milton The former MP for Guildford, Cranleigh and eastern villages, who is now standing as an Independent was almost swallowed up by the Speakers’ chair in her efforts to avoid making even eye contact with Boris Johnson – during one of the last session of Parliament.
Yes, here at the Waverley Web we watched the parliamentary broadcast as Burly Boris on his way back from the voting lobby almost elbowed her out of the way, and she was forced to sit down, perhaps lie down, we know not. All we know is that for 5 mins she completely disappeared from view, and then appeared with a face like a slapped arse!
Her outburst over recent days underlines her true feelings for the man who may have ended her 15-year career in politics. Unless of course, the people she has tirelessly served decide that her dedication as a constituency MP, and experience of holding top ministerial jobs, and her professional achievements within the health service, can put her back in parliament. We ask, why aren’t there more Independent voices in Parliament – working for US and not “THEM”unfettered by party whips?
Certainly, there is no contest between Anne Milton and “the chosen one” Tory PPP Angela Richardson. A Cranleigh parish councillor, who failed to be elected to Waverley Borough Council and with less experience of local Government than the village delivery man. A woman who even those canvassing for her in Guildford and the villages say they would have much preferred to be shlepping around the streets for a woman they trust – Anne Milton.
A poll of 100 people undertaken by the Guildford Dragon revealed the state of play.
Charterhouse was delighted to welcome South West Surrey’s incumbent MP, Jeremy Hunt (Conservative) and Paul Follows (Liberal Democrats) for the School’s first hustings event.
Both candidates took time out of their busy campaign schedules to attend the hustings and present their policies to our pupils. Sadly, the Labour candidate for South West Surrey was unable to attend, but we look forward to welcoming him for future events. The event was well-attended by pupils and teachers alike who commented that it had been a highlight of their year so far.
Deputy Head Boy and A Level Politics pupil, Oba Agboola welcomed the candidates to the school to enormous cheers from the crowd. The event was chaired by A-Level Politics pupils, Gabriel Brown and Anthony Gosnell, and Year 10 pupil, Shiv Pillai. They all did a fantastic job, asking the candidates questions which had been submitted in advance by pupils and staff and then leading audience questions in response. What an incredible accomplishment!
Hard-hitting questions put to the candidates ranged from the UK’s approach to Brexit and whether trust in UK politics was irreparably eroded in light of recent events. Both candidates answered the questions in an informative, professional and dynamic way, and the audience left with many issues to reflect upon.
Charterhouse wishes the candidates the best of luck as they continue their election campaigns.
