Tag: Cranleigh

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!

WHY?

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?

Let the burrowing begin..

Not Tonight Josephine – but Wednesday – Waverley Planners – will view the detailed drawings and Reserved Matters – concerning the first phase (55) of the Berkeley Bunnies new 425  home burrow – on the former Bonham Trust Land behind Stocklund Square in Cranleigh.

The mainly two storey dwellings will be three, four and five bed homes with access onto Knowle Lane. 

Screen Shot 2017-05-22 at 15.26.25.png

Along with all the other developers in Waverley, they have convinced officers, and members alike, that the two and a half storey homes  are just that. Well – just go and view other Crest Nicholson/Berkeley developments and see what you think. They are three storey houses in everything but name.

Screen Shot 2017-05-22 at 16.54.50.png

As you will see there is a very strong presence from Councillors representing Cranleigh!

Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 09.35.53.png

Here’s what the parish council – the local watchdog – has to say, will anyone take one blind bit of notice… here come the diggers!

  • Strong concerns over the movement of construction traffic on Knowle Lane.
  •   The dwellings are higher than those planned forAmlets Lane and the pitched roofs are considered to be too steep and should be reduced.
  •   The proposed footpath is inadequate for pedestrians as there is only adequate space for one person.
  •   This is a wetspot, highlighting flash flooding in the area at the carnival in 2016.
  •   The roads are too narrow and should be made wider to support passing traffic.
  •   The proposed garages would obstruct the highway, causing a lack of space for access.
  •   Object to the ornamental entrance gate as the site must be inclusive, not exclusive. This also includes the brick wall which would create a separation and social exclusion from Cranleigh.
  •   The SuDS scheme is not yet agreed and would need to be heavily relied upon.
  •   Members would like a CEMP to be made a condition of this application.Additional response:
    • –  Gate should be removed from the entrance
    • –  Estate roads are too narrow, and cars will parkalong them restricting access for emergencyvehicles and refuse collection lorries.
    • –  Plots 4, 51, 52 and 53 are 45% higher thanneighbouring properties. The two storey houses have been increased to make the three storey houses look less intrusive.
    • –  Plots 4 and 51 are within a metre of the pavement, making them appear as gateways which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the lane as appears urban.
    • –  Plots 4, 51, 52 and 53 are located opposite Snoxhall Fields ASVI and would be harmful as too bulky and large.

Screen Shot 2017-05-22 at 15.29.28.png

Screen Shot 2017-05-22 at 15.30.02

  • It is contrary to the Cranleigh Design Statement.
  • and.. last but not least.. the transport Statement refers to a roundabout being built to service a new private nursing home (formerly intended to be a replacement hospital) but its permission has now lapsed, so the developer should not rely upon this roundabout.

Needless to say  – there is no objection from the county highway authority or the flood authority. Surprise, surprise! Screen Shot 2017-05-22 at 15.24.24.png
Screen Shot 2017-05-22 at 15.25.33.png

The Berkeley Bunnies want to burrow through even more – ancient trees!

Screen Shot 2017-05-11 at 19.40.17.png

Oh! dear – we hear you cry over there in the East… pesky trees, (areas that have been wooded since 1600) getting in the way of progress! How dare they put their roots down into the soil and get in the way of developers?

Anyway, what’s an ancient tree between friends – after all wasn’t it Waverley’s  head planning honcho that told the voting fodders’ Cranleigh representatives that … “ancient woodland could always be re-planted.’ When detailed consent to build  425 homes was granted Liz the Biz  told  ‘YW’s’  senior planning committee that, although  felling of ancient woodland was required to provide an access from Knowle Lane for the first phase of (50) of Berkeley’s scheme   – the loss of trees was, ‘not significant.’  So that’s alright then!

Is that the sound of ancient trees we hear … biting the Cranleigh dust? 

Now of course, another  belt of ancient trees pictured below, and which have the added protection of Tree Preservation Orders, are in the way of BB’s burrowing. Tomorrow,  the eastern planing committee will be asked to allow the BB’s to remove the Tree Preservation Orders – as they are in their way. 

Oh! and doesn’t that look like a road going through the parkland into Cranleigh New Town?  If not, we suspect it soon will be.

Read more on the Cranleigh Civic Society website:  Oh! and by the way, almost everyone in the borough is being blamed for this blog! So let’s make it clear. We have NOTHING  to do with the Cranleigh Society, we simply follow the site AND APPLAUD IT’S HARD WORK AND DILIGENCE!

http://www.cranleighsociety.org/2017/05/14/berkeley-homes-tree-objection/

Screen Shot 2017-05-11 at 19.01.09.png
https://modgov.waverley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=148&MId=1874&Ver=4

screen-shot-2017-01-31-at-13-44-00

Sad that the consent to cut down ancient woodland for the access road, but now the remaining beautiful trees are about to become sawdust!
 The BB’s have told  the planners –  they are, “a potential significant further barrier to delivery of the development”

Oops excuse us ignorant souls, but it’s not like the trees just appeared on site, after all they are ancient!!  Definition below: The attack just goes on and on… is it time the Waverley spider wrapped its web around its neck and just hung itself? animated-spider-image-0157 Answers to : contact@waverleyweb.org

Screen Shot 2017-05-11 at 20.07.20.png

 

Screen Shot 2017-05-16 at 08.16.20.pngYou can object here: The meeting of the Eastern Area Planning Committee takes place tomorrow, May 17.

https://modgov.waverley.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=148&MId=1874&Ver=4

HERE THEY GO … AGAIN.

Yes, folks, you guessed it, Bob Lees, Chairman of Protect Our (Little Corner) of Waverley, has been busy welcoming the Secretary of State’s decision to call-in the Dunsfold Park application on behalf of ‘the thousands who protested against [the] proposal’. And, in the process, taking the opportunity to spread more of this duplicitous organisation’s propaganda and misinformation.

Screen Shot 2017-03-23 at 10.03.01.png
Where were Bob Lees and his cohorts – who claim to care so much about protecting ‘Our Waverley’ a week ago  when the Knowle Park Initiative (KPI) was granted planning consent for 265 homes on a flood plain at the aptly named Cranleigh Waters?

screen-shot-2016-12-23-at-19-29-06
“WHERE ARE YOU NOW POW COW”?

Were they out in their thousands – their hundreds even – in support of Cranleigh residents who feel ‘under represented, bullied and victimised’, according to a Cranleigh Parish Councillor?

Not on your nelly! Presumably, they were too busy watching box-sets of Brookside to remind themselves of the horrors that await them if housing is ever built at Dunsfold Park!

According to our Cranleigh correspondent,  looking for representatives – even one member of POW would have done! –  in the public gallery at The Burys  It was a classic case of Where’s Wally?

It would seem Bob Lees has been so busy spewing his views on Dunsfold Park’s call-in, he entirely overlooked to send anyone along to object to the KPI proposals! No surprises there then!!! Had he done so maybe, just maybe, Councillor Isherwood (now known as that ‘Plonker Isherwood’ – in honour of Del Boy’s hapless brother Rodney,  might have thought twice before he used his casting vote to force through an application that divided the Planning Committee and had ‘bullied and victimised’ Cranleigh residents crying into their cornflakes the following morning.

Screen Shot 2017-03-23 at 10.09.50.png

WHY, don’t they represent the wider Waverley? POW – Stands for Protect OUR WAVERLEY – So where were you when we were all objecting to major developments in the countryside in FARNHAM?

In all but name they are a reincarnation of Stop Dunsfold Park New Town, a campaign group specifically set up to protect their little corner of the borough – Alfold and Dunsfold.

Cranleigh is a mere six miles up the road from Alfold and Dunsfold – less as the crow flies – but POW don’t put a toe out of bed, let alone outside their front doors to protest against anything unless it has the name Dunsfold Park in it!

Cranleigh and its infrastructure is on its knees, bowing under the weight of over a 1000 new houses that have all been consented since POW was formed!

Do they give a damn? Do they hell! In fact, the more the merrier in Cranleigh, Godalming and Farnham as far as Protect our Little Corner is concerned. The more houses the surrounding towns take the better for Alfold and Dunsfold! 

Is this disingenous bunch even aware of all th e other planning applications in the pipeline on the green fields of aloofly and Dunsfold?  No why would they be?

In the Press recently : Mr Lies (Ooops! must be a Fruedian slip of the fingers, we meant to type Lees – really we did!) refers to ‘inadequate promises of contributions by[Dunsfold Park] to infrastructure’. INADEQUATE CONTRIBUTIONS? Hello! Wakey, wakey! What the f**k is inadequate about a rumoured £50 million pounds worth of contributions? We don’t see any other developer in or around Cranleigh offering anything like that level of contributions to improve local infrastructure or, for that matter, their combined contributions approaching anywhere near that sum … or have we missed something?

And what about Mr Lies (ooops! that finger’s got a mind of its own!) claims, that the Environment Agency and Surrey County Highways had made substantial objections? Yes, they did have some objections but what Mr Lies (Ooops!), oh so conveniently, forgot to clarify was that those objections have been overcome.

But then Mr Lies (Ooops! We did it again)  and his cohorts at ‘P O L Corner’ have form in this respect. They littered the countryside, they claim to be so keen to protect, with dirty great banners in which they asserted that housing at Dunsfold Park would add 42-MINUTES delays to journey times.

So alarmed were we, at Waverley Web, by those startling numbers that we spent days trawling through the planning papers in an effort to substantiate them and what did we discover? That the statement – or should we say lies? – had been taken entirely out of context and deliberately misreported.

What they should have said was that WITHOUT development at Dunsfold Park, delays on the A281 in the coming years could reach 42 minutes but WITH the MITIGATION that development at Dunsfold Park would bring those delays would be reduced to 2 MINUTES! Strikes us that alone is a good enough reason to build houses at Dunsfold Park!

Screen Shot 2017-03-23 at 09.58.23.png

We wish the government wasn’t forcing thousands more homes on Surrey – and Waverley in particular – but they are and that being the case we need to protect as much of our countryside as we can – not just Alfold and Dunsfold! And that means building on previously developed brownfield sites, not the  precious green fields in the NorthSouth,East and West.

Our advice to Mr Lies (Ooops!) and  Co – horts is either start protecting the entire borough of Waverley – although you’ve left it a bit bloody late for that! – or rename yourselves Protect our Ass!

And if you Really, really want to protect the entire borough, why don’t you start right now by lobbying Matron Milton and the Secretary of State to call-in the KPI application because, as we all know, there’s reasons-a-plenty for so doing!

NEWS IN BRIEF
Elsewhere, writing in the Surrey Ad’s ever decreasing letters page recently, a Jane Winder (Whiner more like!) claims that ‘Those who actually know [Dunsfold Park], understand full well that it is an unsuitable and unsustainable place?’

Really? Really? REALLY?

So tell us, Ms Whiner, what’s so unsustainable about a village with direct access onto the A281, it’s own shops, it’s own primary school, health centre, church, recreation facilities and a developer-subsidised bus service to Guildford, Horsham and all points inbetween?

In our humble opinion, that makes this proposed new village a damn sight more sustainable than Dunsfold Village where we understand you live! Dunsfold village doesn’t have a school, or a GP and the village shop relies on volunteers. All well and good but, actually, it’s selfish people like you, opting to live in the middle of nowhere, who are generating all the traffic on the A281 that people like you are so busy complaining about as you have to get in your cars to go anywhere. Come to think of it, a new village at Dunsfold Park makes Alfold and Dunsfold more sustainable and less of a drain on the rest of us as you can walk to their facilities instead of driving along the A281 to Cranleigh, Godalming, Guildford and Horsham! Time to stop whining Ms Winder and start thinking about your own impact on society.

Are you as sick of Sobbing women and men as they are over in Cranleigh and the Eastern villages?

 

Sing-along with Brian  ‘Your Waverley’s’ very own Howard Keel! 

The last thing those over in the East of the borough want to hear are Waverley bloody councillors sobbing  into their cornflakes over the misery they are inflicting on those “poor old villages in the East”

seven-brides-for-seven-brothers

Councillor Anna James (Witley/Hambledon ) pictured above in a warm embrace with Planning Portfolio Holder Brian Adams  (Frensham/Dockenfield & Tilford ) joined the Sobbing women brigade when  she helped him dump another 265 houses on Cranleigh last week.

 But whilst joining  the overflowing  “Chamber Pot” of councillors that is now ‘Your Waverley’ she smugly said how “very sorry” she was for   Cranleigh and the villages –

 ” I feel sorry in my hScreen Shot 2017-03-20 at 16.00.19.pngeart for the people  of Cranleigh,”

she cried into her  microphone. and continued  ….       saying said she had only been a councillor for  five years and all she had heard from the get-go  was  “Cranleigh’s expansion.”  First one development then another, the place was just getting wider and wider – a bit like Bordon in Hampshire.

Screen Shot 2017-03-20 at 16.16.56.png

 Ending with – yes you guessed – “I feel really feel very sorry for Cranleigh and my heart goes out ………………..!” Well your heart may go out but it certainly doesn’t stop your hand going up, does it?

Followed by “I have every sympathy…………. Yeah,  we get it…Yadah, yadah, yada  You’re  really, really, really sorry for Cranleigh – instead of crying crocodile  tears, why don’t you  just shut the hell up and give the place a break,  why don’t you!

Screen Shot 2017-03-19 at 23.22.24.png

Well Councillor James, be afraid be very afraid, because if Dunsfold goes down, and we at Waverley Web think it’s all over bar the shouting at Dunsfold since the Deputy Dominatrix stuck her nose in, then there’s going to be a bloody great HOLE in the daft local Plan that’s going to be filled by dipping into the Green Belt. Which could herald development in fortress CHIDDINGFOLD, Milford, Elstead, Haslemere, around Godalming, over here in Farnham’s fields and even in Bramley, where the Green Belt has already been sacrificed… ask By-Pass Byham, who was  only too happy to offer it up like a sacrificial lamb in aid of his Tory-Tosser friend!

Then John Gray (Dunsfold) joined the sobbing women, saying how sorry he was for Cranleigh – but not  sorry enough to vote against more homes going onto green fields! Of course not… he’s too busy  protecting  that ruddy great Brown field on his doorstep! Whilst voting twice this year for development in the – GREEN BELT!

 Councillor May Foryszewski’s response to all the sobbing was – “I just cannot believe what I am hearing here tonight!” Really? Really? Really? – Come on, Cranleigh’s very  own Valkyrie, how long have you been listening to this? It’s par for the course! And, let’s face it  your colleagues aren’t going to give up until the East and the West are  covered in concrete! Perhaps you should be having some strong words with you TT colleagues?

 Oh Carole (Cockburn) then joined the sodding sobbers, saying she felt a bit like Cranleigh people – “Punch drunk.” and then proceeded to stick her Farnham  mit in the air, saying when it was refused “last time” it was “isolated” but now that all the other sites had been allowed around it, this was no longer the case! 

Then afterwards, they all went asobbing  into their G & T’s whilst the Champagne corks popped for the Flying Dutchman’s –  who is just another GRQ- Cranleigh developer.

And the sad thing is, there’s more to come, much more! Watch this space,  cos  you aint seen nothing yet!

  • another 20 or so on the Infant School site in Church Lane.
  • Around 90 on the Junior School site in the centre of the High Street off Parsonage Road,
  • Another extension to Horsham Road by Crest Nicholson (100);

But bring it all on why don’t you, because according to the late Cranleigh Councillor Brian Ellis,  shopkeepers – “need more foot fall.” May he Rest in …..?

At this rate, footfall is all anyone is going to get in Cranleigh because the traffic from these developments is going to create the mother of all snarl ups. Maybe that’s the secret plan: bumper- to – bumper traffic in Cranleigh to ensure motorists look in the shop windows at they attempt to negotiate the High Street. Never mind, drive-ins, in Cranleigh it could be drive-bye…bye!