Follow the money?

Featured

angry_judge

One way or another, I’m gonna getcha? 

 

It began so well. On the second day of the High Court Hearing into CPRE / POW’s challenge to the Secretary of State, Waverley Borough Council and the Dunsfold Developer, Julia Potts went from fabulous to fishnets.

Of course, there were fewer bums on seats in the public gallery – having turned out to cheer on team POW on day one, POW’s supporters didn’t bother turning up. Why would they? They’ve never been interested in listening to anyone’s arguments but their own.

Despite eloquent counter arguments from Wayne Beglan, on behalf of Waverley BC, David Elvin, for the Dunsfold Developer, and the Secretary of State’s barrister, the Judge appeared sympathetic to poor little David’s fight against Goliath. Yes, things appeared to be going swimmingly for Capt’n Bob and Co. 

Here the WW want to make something clear. We have never opposed residents’ right to challenge. In fact, we have applauded that right. However,  we believe in honesty. This protest group was set up for one purpose and one purpose only – to Dump Development at Dunsfold. Nothing else. If POW cannot tell the truth – others will tell it for you. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of OUR money, has been spent by 11 parish councils,  some even from across the Surrey/Sussex border.

Did anyone ask YOU?

Which takes us back to yesterday’s hearing when the Judge turned her attention to the Aarhus Convention (The public’s right to justice which limits costs to just £10,000). POW’s barrister only just stopped short of pulling out his violin as he painted a picture of brave little David’s hand-to-mouth existence, passing round the begging-bowl every time they needed to mount yet another challenge against the Big Bad Developer and Wolfish Waverley, neither of whom gave a fig for local residents, both of whom were only interested in concreting over a big brownfield site to the detriment of all those living nearby.

Smiling graciously, The High Court Judge looked sincere and almost reached for her handkerchief. 

Capt’n Bob Lies and Boy Britten’s fizzogs were wearing huge smiles clearly believing they were home and dry on the costs front whilst, in the public gallery,  La Potts and Ged Hall gnashed their teeth.

And then a miracle happened. The Dunsfold Developer’s junior brief leapt up and with a few well-placed words turned the tide.  Mr Turney said POW was a single-interest group that, despite pleading poverty, had been successfully raising huge sums of money in order to fight/stop any development at Dunsfold Park at every turn. He strongly suspected POW was a front for a few “high net worth individuals” who had promised to cough-up whatever it took to stop the Dunsfold development in its tracks while underwriting the whole shebang. Mr Turney’s prose was far more elegant than ours and issued in a mellifluous tone that, whilst soothing, held just the right degree of indignation to get the Judge’s attention.

The Judge said she couldn’t help but agree with Mr Turney’s assertion – backed up by Mr Beglan on behalf of his client – that there was a lack of transparency on POW’s part about where their financial resources were coming from? Looked suitably pained, PoW’s barrister said the Judge couldn’t be suggesting that poor little David was trying to hide anything? POW simply lurched from one fundraising event to the next, raising dribs and drabs, against all the odds, as the need arose.

M T. was having none of it saying POW had raised vast sums in order to mount a challenge at the Public Inquiry. It was then the Judge’s sympathy began to wane and Capt’n Bob’s smile evaporated like Scotch mist when she said she was leaning towards proposing full disclosure from POW in relation to their funding sources. PoW co-ordinators Chris Britton and Alan Ground looked fit for the ground to swallow them. 

PoW’s Rumpole appealed again, surely not, the Judge couldn’t really mean it! But Mr Turney had shone a light on POW’s dirty little secret, revealing not the slightly dented, second-hand petty cash tin they claimed to keep their sparse funds in but a dirty great safety deposit box full of filthy lucre!

Apparently, they weren’t counting Doris’s pennies; why would they when, as Mr Turney disclosed, a small group of wealthy well-wishers were writing gold-plated cheques to the tune of £15,000 – £20,000 a pop with a flourish of their Mont Blancs!

 Whose to say same wealthy donors hadn’t egged POW on, agreeing to underwrite all their costs, whilst, at the same time, urging them to try to gain protection from Aahrus thus ensuring that the Waverley Tax Payer ended up footing the bill for POW’s largesse?

Mr Turney didn’t allude to it but the mutter in the Waverley gutter, which has been gaining momentum in recent weeks, reveals at least one devious developer is bank-rolling POW in order to stop development at Dunsfold Park to give his own sites, elsewhere in the Borough, a better chance of succeeding. A strategy right up POW’s lane as they don’t care what’s developed elsewhere in the Borough as long as it’s not on their doorstep!

And isn’t that’s exactly what happened in the case of Mr & Mrs House over at Milford? Their challenge, which was thrown out at the first hurdle, was funded by a developer eager to build in Godalming!

Against a background of excited chatter from the public gallery and red faces in POW’s camp, the Judge instructed the POW’s Rumpole that his clients had seven days in which to provide a full witness statement in relation to their funding arrangements/donations going back to the publication of Inspector Bore’s report. 

In the meantime, our advice to Dear Doris. Save your pennies for POW has no need of them. You and any other unsuspecting pensioner who’s donated precious funds they can ill afford have been deceived.

POW’s is a front for some serious High Rollers who don’t want development on their doorsteps but on someone else’s and are hellbent on ensuring it goes anywhere but Dunsfold and at taxpayer’s expense!  

In the meantime, we at the Waverley Web look forward to seeing how the Sorry Advertiser –  report The Great Dunsfold Dust Off.  Whose own High Roller boss lives on the boundary of Dunsfold Aerodrome  A “high worth’ individual who just happens to live so near he could spit at the airfield from his £8m and reducing, country pile.

Alfold Parish Council couldn’t possibly be acting as Banker – could it? No, not really, never?

We’re in the (unexplained) money!!

We’re in the (unexplained) money!!

Featured

The Waverley Web has been contacted by a concerned Alfold resident whose husband nearly choked on his cornflakes and uttered an expletive which, she assures us, has never passed his lips before in her hearing – ‘WTF!!!’

unexplained_wealth

Pardon our Russian, but we’re only repeating what we’ve been told!  Apparently, the gentleman in question was perusing the accounts of the parish council, as he does every year – because that’s the type of person he is – and he noticed a major discrepancy.  So MAJOR at first he thought it must be a typo or had someone put the decimal point in the wrong place???

For, according to the January 9th 2018 budget, this tiny parish council which, in a normal year, has a turnover of £35,000 and, in the previous year, had grants and donations of £14,850, had received grants and donations of £276,400. and, even more staggeringly, had spent the entire sum on legal fees!!!

alford_income

WTF indeed!!!!!!!!!!

Who on earth is bank-rolling Alfold Parish Council to the tune of £276,400?   Its’ annual precept is around £25,000 and that money is usually swallowed up dealing with ditches, hedges and dog shit!  Anyone attending Alfold Parish Council meetings, even on an irregular basis, will know that Pooper-Scooping at the playground is a permanent preoccupation for the Parish Councillors and leads to much animated (pardon the pun!) discussion.

alfold2.jpg

The full accounts can be found by clicking  here.

Q

Has Alfold PC, unbeknown to its parishioners, given up scooping the poop and scooped the Lotto?  Or has someone died and left them a legacy?  And did they spend the lot desperately defending their scoop when disgruntled rellies contested the will?

Can anyone throw any light on what’s going on in Alfold – shortly to change its name to Kerchingold?!  Or, are we going to have to file for an Unexplained Wealth Order?  You know us here at the Waverley Web, we’re always on trend!

The next Alfold Parish Meeting will take place on.  Or will Nick Pidgeon have lived up to his name and taken flight?  But, even if he has, we’re sure the very competent Clerk, Crystal Tipps Weddell, will have an explanation.

Will it be rather embarrassing for Chairman Nik Pidgeon Partner at lawyers Charles Russell Speechlys? His Chairman’s 2018 report on the Local Plan said:

“In respect of Dunsfold Park, again we made representations during the planning process, and with the Joint Parish Councils, were represented at the Public Inquiry following the Call-In by the Secretary of State of the planning permission that was granted.
All this involved much work and expense. (WWethinks quite a lot of work and expense!!) Thanks in particular to Beverley for her assistance in keeping this organised. 

Yet there was NO mention of thanks to their donor of A QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS FOR LEGAL FEES?

We look forward to hearing from Alfold residents at mailtocontact@waverleyweb.org

Alfold Chairman’s Report: http://www.alfold.org/APC%20Draft%20MINUTES%208.5.18.pdf

Alfold 2017/2018 Budget: http://www.alfold.org/Annual%20Budget%20-%20By%20Combined%20Account%20Code%2030.11.17.PDF

The WW has just received a comment to : contact@waverleyweb.org  from an Alfold man very concerned that his comments may somehow be traced back to him! What are people afraid of in that village, we wonder? However, although we vet comments before they are published to prevent defamatory statements. We want to assure all our readers that unless you wish for your real name to be disclosed, and wish to use s pseudonym we pledge would never reveal your identity. However, although you may comment, we must ensure that we know your comment are from a bona fide correspondents.

 

The Final Countdown?

Featured

The phone lines between Waverley East and West hummed last night as those who attended the first day of the High Court battle between PoW and it’s bosom buddies CPRE versus Waverley Borough Council and the Secretary of State chewed the fat over the wires.

 It was Ground Hog Day with all the usual suspects present and correct in Court 76 – the same tired old room in the nether regions of the High Court that hosted the first Hearing earlier in the year. WW animated-spider-image-0157just hung on in there…

Cast List
La Potts was a resplendent Josephine in a technicolour dream coat boasting colours of the rainbow – red and yellow and green and blue … and put the more conservative Liz-the-Biz, Daniel Bainbridge, Tom Horwood and Paul Fellows in the shade. Although Denise Le Gal, Waverley’s Mayor, did her best to rival La Potts by turning up late in Leopard Print!

Alan & Sarah Ground – still, to their chagrin, of The Old Rectory on The Green. Regular readers will be aware they’ve been trying to flog their Dunsfold pile since March but, sadly for them, there are no takers. That’s what happens when you spend 15 years dissing your neighbours. You’d have thought they’d have realised that given their collaborator in Stop Dunsfold Park New Town (Rupert Howell of Trinity Mirror and Sorry Advertiser fame) has been trying and failing to sell his bigger and better pile, adjacent to the airfield, on and off for years now.

Bob Lies, CEO of Protect our Little Corner, huddled on the back bench next to instructing solicitors.

John Jefferies, a PoW supporter, rocked up late and plonked himself down next to Dunsfold Park’s legal team. Had the boot been on the other foot, you can bet your bottom dollar, PoW would have been hollering ‘Spys in the camp’ from the High Court turrets but the Dunsfold Developer clearly couldn’t give a toss.

The Judge, refreshing young – not in the first flush, we understand, but young for a member of the judiciary – was female and clearly mistress of her brief and keen to lose no time in getting the ball rolling.

First up was The Grinch – oops! we mean The Stinch – on behalf of Protect our Little Corner.

Predictably, he had nothing new to say and bored the pants off everyone by harking back – yet again – to 2009 when permission to develop housing at Dunsfold Park was ‘emphatically refused’ because the site was ‘inherently unsustainable’. Oh, change the record do! The world’s moved on since 2009 but, clearly, The Stinch hasn’t. All his harking-back revealed he had nothing new to say and was relying on old arguments that have been repeatedly and soundly rebuffed, thrown out both by Waverley’s Planners and the Secretary of State no less.

By mid-morning, we’re told, even the Judge had had enough and was beginning to bore of his arguments. The Stinch bandied numbers around like confetti as he tried to justify his badly mangled argument which boiled down to PoW’s contention that Inspector Bore had started with the wrong figure in relation to Woking Borough Council’s unmet need and because the figure was wrong he had no business allocating 50% of it to Waverley. The Judge seemed unconvinced, questioning whether The Stinch was trying to argue that a 50:50 split on its own was wrong in law?

 PoW looked pained as the Judge sliced and diced The Stinch’s waffle and cut to the chase. They weren’t remotely interested in Waverley’s housing numbers per se, they were simply interested in stopping housing development at Dunsfold Park, at any cost, and if crying foul over housing numbers helped them achieve that goal that was all they cared about, regardless of the outcome for the rest of the Borough which could well end up without the protection of a Local Plan by the time they’re finished!

Then up came Mr Westway on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England – that’s the bunch who’s nationwide cri de coeur is ‘Brownfield first’ everywhere … except at Dunsfold! They’d rather Waverley built all over green fields and greenbelt than laid a single brick on the Borough’s largest brownfield site.

If the Judge was bored by The Stinch, her Clerk’s eyes glazed over listening to Mr Westway. Indeed, so did everyone else, when the Judge livened things up by accusing Mr Westway of ‘trying to argue the inarguable’ and levying ‘very unfair criticism at Inspector Bore’ but Mr Westway was unrepentant and well and truly cooked his goose when the Judge explained to him, very gently, that she knew where he was coming from and where he was trying to get to and he really didn’t need to spell out every single syllable of his argument for her as she had – ahem – read her brief! Unfortunately, the Patronising Puppy didn’t take the hint, droning on for another hour. By the end of his oration, the Grounds were dozing on each other’s shoulder, Bob Lies had his head in his hands and those on the opposing side had given up all pretence of polite attention and were busily tapping away on their ipads, catching up on the day job.

Wayne Beglan, for Waverley Borough Council, finally got to his feet mid-afternoon but the main thrust of his argument and that of the Secretary of State and the Dunsfold Developer will have to wait until today. 

What of Aarhus we hear you ask? We know many of you are very anxious to know if you, the Waverley Council Tax Payer, will have to pick up Protect our Little Corner’s costs or whether the Judge will rule – as Waverley Borough Council and the Secretary of State contend – they pick up their own. The Judge deferred this decision to the end of the Hearing, at which point we understand Capt’n Bob and his cohort, Chris Britten, rushed for the loos, leaving skid marks in their wake!

Who knows, by this time tomorrow it could be mi casa es su casa! And if that’s the case maybe Messrs Lies and Britten will bugger off and bother some other borough!

Or maybe not, for rumour has it Protect our Little Corner is still being incredibly reticent about the source of its funding and the mutter in the gutter is that’s because another local developer has been funding them in order to knock out Dunsfold Park thus ensuring his own plans to develop other sites elsewhere in the borough – Godalming –  stand a better chance of success …

To be continued … gossip and South-West trains willing!!!

Round Two has been won but the protracted fight to defend Waverley’s Local Plan goes on… and on!

Featured

Here we go again!

cpreonbrownfield

Unless of course, it happens to be in the borough of Waverley?

 

The Court of Appeal has thrown out The Protect Our Waverley and the CPRE’s latest challenge to overturn High Court decisions made in July. These challenges affect the Dunsfold Aerodrome development and Waverley’s  Local Plan. 

Obviously, the anti-Dunsfold brigade have very deep pockets? Because although their costs MAY BE limited to £10,000 under Access to Justice Legislation called (Aarhus) they will be paying shedloads of dosh for the Rumpoles who represent them!

The appeals, lodged by POW Campaign Ltd and CPRE Surrey, followed a High Court’s decision on 12 July 2018 to dismiss significant elements of challenges to the Council’s Local Plan and the Secretary of State’s Dunsfold Park decision.

The rejected appeals sought to challenge the High Court’s decision to refuse permission to go to a full hearing in respect of the following grounds: In other words, the locals aren’t giving up until the fat lady sings?

  • · that the council and the Local Plan Inspector failed to consider environmental constraints (in the context of calculating Waverley’s objectively assessed need)

 

  • · that both the council and the Inspector did not correctly apply the two-stage test as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Councillor Julia Potts, Leader of Waverley Borough Council, said: “I am pleased the appeals against the High Court judge’s decision have been refused.

“This is a small victory for us but we will still need to defend the council’s position in the challenge to Woking’s unmet housing need allocation in Waverley’s Local Plan.

“We didn’t bring these legal challenges and don’t want to be in this situation. I believe our Local Plan is the best plan for the borough and we have a duty to defend it; having a sound Local Plan means we can defend and protect the borough from inappropriate development. That’s why, after careful consideration, we think it’s absolutely the right thing to set aside funds to be able to defend the legal challenges.

“We will continue to defend our Local Plan and to use it to guide planning decisions.”

The Council and other parties will be attending a full Judicial Review hearing on 9 and 10 October 2018, which will consider challenges from POW Campaign Ltd and CPRE Surrey to Waverley’s Local Plan, relating to Woking’s unmet need allocation, and a challenge from POWCampaign Ltd to the grant of planning permission in respect of Dunsfold Park. Just a little thought on Woking’s unmet need straight from our sun lounger?

When  POW and CPRE  square up for Round Three at the High Court in October they will challenge both the legality of Waverley Borough Council’s approval of their Local Plan and the Secretary of State’s decision to approve development at Dunsfold Park (1,800 homes consented).

If this is thrown out then presumably His Holiness The Pope will be called in to rule and then if that fails The Almighty himself – the omnipotent one will be asked to make the final judgment no doubt?

A Judge decided at an oral hearing in July that parts of the POW and CPRE’s case had merit, but other grounds did not. (not entirely accurate)

POW and CPRE say they appealed on the rejected grounds and this week that appeal was dismissed. The principal grounds for the forthcoming cases remain – primarily the question of the burden of a housing quota for Woking’s unmet being placed on Waverley Borough. This will be heard in the High Court where Waverley will have to account for their actions. At the same court, hearing POW is also challenging the legal basis for the SoS’s decision to approve Dunsfold Airfield development.

Bob Lees, Chairman of POW said:

The situation is the same as when the High Court judge approved our case in July to go to full court in October. Waverley don’t need to defend the case – if POW and CPRE win this case they would seek a remedy of a reduction in the quota for housing – that will relieve some of the burden on the Borough of Waverley and Waverley Borough Council. This is not about the Local Plan failing. As for Waverley sending their legal team to attend the Secretary of State’s court case – that is their choice but is that really the best use of council tax payer’s money where the primary beneficiary of the SoS winning is a wealthy developer?”

WW. Which of course, what this whole very expensive exercise is all about?

The statement continues: “We have repeatedly asked WBC’s CEO to justify the council’s reasons for not considering a “do nothing” approach to the Court cases – I have yet to be re-assured they considered every option. Separately we have not received any justification from WBC for them spending £100,000 where they are not the defendant – they are merely an interested party in the SoS’s defence of the legal basis for approving a £1.1bn development of Dunsfold Airfield.”

What a hypocrite! Capt’n Bob and his motley crew don’t give a damn about the rest of the Borough. All they care about is stopping Dunsfold Park building on a brownfield site, adjacent to a major A-road. Where were Protect our Waverley when applications were submitted and approved for development on greenfields in Alfold, Cranleigh and Farnham what are they saying about plans to build on the green belt in Godalming?? Sitting around the kitchen table plotting their next move in the downfall of the Dunsfold Developer. They’re oblivious to what’s going on in the rest of the borough because they’re single-mindedly committed to stopping development on the one site that is crying out to be developed. What’s that old saying: there’s none so blind as them that can’t see …

If you can bear to read more: Does ‘Your Waverley’ have to manage a crisis now the High Court has allowed challenges to the Local Plan to be heard at a Judicial Review?

Screen Shot 2018-09-20 at 19.06.32.png

Waverley’s Jim Edwards was so pleased with his new Economic Strategy …

Featured

… that he took the Waverley executive on a coach tour of business parks, including this one at Dunsfold.

You know the airfield that the locals have repeatedly objected to its expansion for business or anything else!

The executives are pictured here on the starting blocks to push the council’s new economic strategy forward.  Or could it be the same as the old one, just with no officers left to carry it out!

 

jimedwards_dunsfold.png

On your marks – get set – GO!

 

When members of Waverley’s Value for Money Overview and Scrutiny Committee sat down to scrutinise the draft strategy last night there were some glum faces. Waverley had brought in ‘experts’ (Atkins Consultants) to write a document which councillors said they hadn’t had time to peruse – some hadn’t even received it!

Ah well nothing, like scrutinising something you have hardly read, or haven’t seen at all, is there? A document that will go to the Executive for approval on 9 October!

Suffice to say those who had “skimmed through” the document said much was missing. No surprise there then!

Councillors identified that although there were 8,200 businesses in Waverley the document had not taken into account there were many rural businesses in a mainly rural borough but there was no reference to them. Dunsfold’s Councillor John Gray said the figures just didn’t add up – “It says here there are only 85 people employed in 165 rural businesses – what about agriculture, forestry etc?”

Councillor Mike Band wanted to know where was The Surrey Hills Management Plan was identified? A group partly funded by Waverley?

Richard Seaborne suggested the document, particularly the Executive Summary should be  “tidied up” and should include some important figures – like the size of Waverley’s economy which was £4.7billion. He said “A goodly number of highly educated highly paid people who live in the borough and use its services work outside the borough. I want to see more detail on the in-out economy? Does Waverly have the staff or the skills to monitor the document?’

The document didn’t portray an overall picture said, David Round. Including infrastructure, the overcrowded trains from Haslemere included. He claimed 80% of the money that flowed into Waverley came from the City – that is the driver of Waverley’s economy. He highlighted the amount of office and retail space being lost to residential partly due to increased business rates – “are we telling the Government – if we all bleat it may listen.”

Stephen Mulliner shared many of his colleagues’ reservations – “truth is –  a local authority is not best placed to carry out the actions in this document termed as – SMART – which he asked to be removed – we don’t have the money or the staff to do that. We are not a business” 

The man behind the document, Jolly Jim Edwards looking not quite so jolly at the end, said that the need for the important Economic Strategy was prompted by CRATUS – ( brought in by CEO Tom Horwood to review Waverley.)  “We all have to realise we are making a real sea change here  – there is a long way to go but at least we’ve made a start.”

Not a very good one, judging by the way it was received! A bit like Elsies – Culture Strategy?Do we have a Cultural Strategy or do we have 230 pages weighing over – 600 grams – of expensive tripe?

Councillors agreed to form a small group to do further work on the document urgently before recommending it to the Executive. 

 

 

Just a little thought on Woking’s unmet need straight from our sun lounger?

Screen Shot 2018-08-06 at 09.51.16.png

There’s nothing like sitting on a sun lounger sipping a Pink Gin listening to the waves lapping against the rocks to get the old brain cells working is there?

Here’s a thought for you which we haven’t seen expressed anywhere to date but I think it is a point which could do with an airing.

Dunsfold Aerodrome was in the latest version of the local plan right from the start, wasn’t it? So it has been tested and consulted on at every stage.

dunsfold_granted

When the Woking unmet need figures were introduced and then confirmed by the Inspector in 2017 Waverley’s answer was to add numbers TO THE REST OF THE BOROUGH including Farnham. See MM3 on page 7 below.

So in the unlikely scenario that CPRE wins its challenge to the local plan on the Woking unmet need point, people should be asking themselves why should it be Dunsfold Aerodrome that gets thrown into doubt and removed from the local plan (the PoW case) and not all the additional houses which were bolted onto Farnham (and undermined their neighbourhood plan if you remember) and Cranleigh and various other places including some in the Green Belt?

In this case, it should really be “last in, first out”

Just a thought? Back home soon when we will reveal all the countries reading the Waverley Web!

You can read it for yourself here:

Schedule of Main Modifications

Double Whoopee another shedload of our money goes down the pan!

 

waverleyplansdowntoilet.jpg

Here’s the taxpayer’s money about to be flushed away…again!

To misquote Oliver Hardy:

Screen Shot 2018-06-13 at 17.49.08.png

The Honourable Mr. Justice Holgate has ordered that in the matter of applications for Planning Statutory Review:

1. POW Campaign Ltd – v- Waverley Borough Council and Dunsfold Airport Ltd
2. CPRE Surrey -v- Waverley Borough Council
3. POW Campaign Ltd -v- Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

The three applications be consolidated and heard together, at an oral hearing, as soon as possible after 25 June 2018 because he considers this to be the most efficient way of dealing with the applications.

The Judge has noted that there is considerable overlap in the legal arguments raised in the claims by POW and CPRE and a good deal of the factual and policy context is common to all three claims. He has also decreed that one Judge should hear all of the matters at the permission stage and one Judge should also hold any substantive hearing in relation to any claims granted permission to proceed. And, whether the claims are consolidated or not, the hearings must take place in the same hearing window to avoid inefficient use of judicial resources.

Mr. Justice Holgate concludes by saying priority must be given in the list of the applications to the availability of a Judge and not to the availability of any counsel presently instructed. Which, in short, means The Stinch, Rumpole and Wayne Beglan, who acted on behalf of POW, the Dunsfold Developer, and Waverley Borough Council respectively, may not star in the blockbusting sequel. It’s rather like a film studio killing off the leading man when he tries to up his fee for the sequel!

It remains to be seen if those bit-part-players, Charles William Orange Esq (AKA OJ) and Nik Pidgeon (AKA Not-in-my-Columbier), will rock up for the latest round.

However, we have heard from one of the herd at Protect Our Waverley that they are JUBILANT and cannot wait to get their days/weeks/ in court.

As the two above are among the key architects of PoW & the Parishes’ case against the Dunsfold Developer one would expect them to be preening in front row seats but neither have been seen in public since they were outed, around the time of the Dunsfold Inquiry, as Nimby Developers who, having spent years parking their concrete mixers in other peoples’ backyards, now want to move in on their own patch and dig up the village greens of Awfold and Hascombe in preference to seeing the brownfields of Dunsfold Airfield developed. KERCHING!

Reading Mr Justice Holgate’s direction, whilst sipping a glass or two of Silent Pool’s excellent G&T, we at Waverley Web, found ourselves re-visiting the words of that elder statesman of the three barristers at the recent Inquiry into Dunsfold Park, Christopher Katkowski QC, AKA Rumpole: “The very fact that the Rule 6 Parties [otherwise known as POW & the Parishes] speak in such terms shows what the planning system has to grapple with and face down here!”

We can only hope that the High Court Judge on whose bench these cases land will be up to grappling with and tackling the Nimbyism which has polluted the waters of Waverley.

But – and purely in the interests of fairness, you understand – we must give equal airtime to The Stinch, on behalf of POW and the Parishes, whom we awarded Quote of the Day on the first day of the Dunsfold Inquiry, when he announced, in suitably sombre tones…

Screen Shot 2018-06-13 at 17.55.41

 

If only! How most of us wish that were true. All we do know is that, despite those famous first words from The Stinch, Waverley taxpayers are looking down the barrel of yet another review of the Dunsfold decision and the Local Plan!

 In company with the Brexit Remoaners, POW and the Parishes won’t take NO for an answer – they’re just going to keep on pushing this ball uphill and down dale until someone somewhere, anyone anywhere, agrees with them and overturns the decision to build on the biggest brownfield site in the borough and allows ‘Your Waverley’ to continue concreting over the countryside.

And the Government has the cheek to wonder why developers aren’t building enough houses quickly enough … and why they are so expensive!

Yet another case of you couldn’t make it up!!!

It couldn’t possibly be Dunsfold Park that this man is speaking of… could it?

 

Screen Shot 2018-05-20 at 10.12.46.png

Ah! But there are some who don’t want jobs, homes, people or traffic, a school for the autistic, or a school for villagers children in and around DUNSFOLD. Same people who, but will happily support it here in Farnham – or in Godalming, Milford, Guildford, Haslemere, or Woking, Wrecclesham, or anywhere for that matter other than – at a brownfield site in DUNSFOLD! Get it!
Oh! and many of the moaners will probably work there when all those lovely jobs arise!
As for us here at the Waverley Web, we have all had a discussion. A Waitrose would go down well – even a Waitrose at Home – to join the M & S – in Alfold. Perhaps a few other major stores that Waverley Council, together with their partner Surrey County Council – who are investing over £50million over here in retail – could match in the East of the borough? Fairs, fair after all – because their other Farnham partner Crest Nicholson – is building shedloads of homes in Cranleigh  – that nobody appears to have noticed! 

Another – Puff of Wind – from You know who!

How to flog a dead horse until its bones rattle! Protect Our Waverley takes on yet another Judicial Review – this time against – Dunsfold Airfield!

 

pow_waverleyhorse.jpg

Editor’s Note: Protect our Little Corner claims to represent ‘a very large and continually growing number of concerned Waverley residents whose interest is in sustainable, balanced and appropriate development. We are seeking development to be led by a robust Local Plan and sustainable developments that meet local need as encouraged under the NPPF.’

Trouble is they have 339 followers, which is a mere 0.27% of the population of Waverley, which was 121,572 at the 2011 census!

Never mind flogging a dead horse, this particular horse’s bones are rattling!

Ah! well, that is the price we pay for democracy – another shedload of taxpayers’ money on its way to the legal beavers!

THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD FROM THE SORRY ADVERTISER

 

With delicious irony, in a recent story in the Sorry Advertiser a headline read HOMES NEEDED BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ROADS? alongside a photograph of The Wintershall Estate actors who brought Guildford High Street to a juddering halt as they performed The Passion Plays on Tunsgate over the Easter weekend.

Relegated to page 13 – unlucky for some! – was the Sorry Ad’s Round-up of reactions to Dunsfold news. Bob Lies, chairman of Protect our little corner of Waverley, opined: ‘While more housing is needed it should be put in the right place and Dunsfold clearly is not the right place with its totally inadequate infrastructure.’

WHAT is that man on? The only thing that is clear about this whole sorry saga is that Bob Lies and his campaigning cohorts consider the largest brownfield site in the borough, with direct access onto an A-road – moreover an A-road that doesn’t even appear in the top 10 busiest A-roads in the county! – ‘clearly is not the right place’. The man and his minions are barking! The only people that deem Dunsfold Park ‘not the right place’ are some, and it is only SOME, residents of Alfold and Dunsfold, who don’t want their rural idyl polluted by  people who, once the new village is built, will – in the words of Dunsfold Park’s QC, ‘Live more sustainably than they themselves do.’ What a nincompoop. We’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating, Mr Lies would do well to take a leaf out of the late Sir Denis Thatcher’s book:

BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND BE THOUGHT A FOOL THAN TO SPEAK OUT AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT!

While Mr Lies was saying, ‘We now trust the local authority and the site owner to work closely and constructively with the local community to ensure the adverse impacts of the development are minimised ‘ his legal beavers were preparing to challenge the Local Plan. ...’ To the best of our knowledge Dunsfold Park has spent the past 15-odd years trying to work with the local community, and at every turn, they have been snubbed and vilified by Mr Lies and his predecessors, Stop Dunsfold Park New Town.

In the Bramley Babes Update, published on the same day as the Sorry Ad, it said:‘Despite all of our best efforts, this is not the decision we were hoping for. Should have added: we’re not giving up…yet!

We know from our Bramley correspondent that year after year tickets for Top Gear were requested and generously donated by Dunsfold Park to the village fete and Bramley and other Infants School, helping to boost their coffers!  What price a little gratitude?

Meanwhile, MP Moaning Milton, who made no secret of her opposition to Dunsfold Park and, in cahoots with fellow MP Jeremy S-Hunt, are guilty of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds council tax payers money making Waverley Borough Council jump through hoops in its bid  to meet the housing quotas dictated by their Conservative Government, now has the nerve to pontificate:

‘Now that the Planning Inspector has approved the building at Dunsfold, it is absolutely essential that every possible step is taken to fund and provide the supporting infrastructure we need. This will be critical during the construction period. I will, therefore, pursue every possible mitigating measure to help local residents in Alfold and Cranleigh.’

What a pity Moaning Milton didn’t give some thought to the millions of pounds that could have been spent on local infrastructure if the Dunsfold Developer hadn’t had to fight, tooth-and-nail, her dirty little behind-the-scenes shenanigans. We wouldn’t go knocking at the Dunsfold Developer’s door if we were you, Moaning Milton!  You’re the last person likely to persuade the DD  to support any initiative you’re spearheading. From what we’ve heard from some of the Dunsfold businesses.

 You won’t be invited to break ground, you’ve spent far too much time breaking wind!

Meanwhile, there’s a little light relief on the Sorry Ad’s Letters Page:

H Alexander of the Residents Greenbelt Group, claims that ‘buy-to-let landlords have effectively bought every property built since 1985′ and that ‘Solving the housing crisis will not be achieved by destroying the countryside but by sensible policies such as reversing buy-to-let so as to bring those 5 million properties into occupier-ownership.’ Watch out Jeremy S-Hunt – AKA Peter Rachman of Southampton – Comrade Alexander has your buy-to-let portfolio in his sights!

• Meanwhile, Paul Woodhams, of Merrow, is ‘appalled at the decision to allow 1,800 homes to be built on Dunsfold Park. No thought has been given to the problems of the extra traffic along the A281.’ Durrrhhh! Where have you been, Mr Woodhams? One of the reasons the application was consented is due to the proposed mitigation measures improving the traffic problems on the A281. The learned gentleman goes on to say that he ‘suppose[s] our local Members of Parliament will be silent on these plans ...’ If only! Again, where have you been? Moaning Milton has been banging on about nothing but for years!!!

Disgusted of Woodland Avenue demands to know, ‘What makes it OK now when it hasn’t been viable before?’ Does anyone bother to read the paperwork? The Planning Inspector and the Secretary of State in their respective report and decision letter were at great pains to explain what makes it OK now when it hasn’t been viable before! Get with the programme Mr Baldock! Try reading the report then you won’t make a fool of yourself asking daft questions that everyone else knows the answer to, even if they don’t care to admit it because it’s such a very inconvenient truth that Dunsfold Park will make the A281 less congested if and when it’s built than the road would be if it isn’t built!

Seriously, folks, no one minds you having your say – after all, it was still a free country last time we looked – just! – but if you’re going to pontificate, at least take the time to do your homework, read the paperwork and try to get your heads around the facts rather than the drivel that has been propagated by the likes of Bob Lies – the clue’s in his sobriquet!