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!!!

How now POW’s (cash) cow?

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-10-02 at 18.51.12.pngIs the milk about to go sour in POW’s Brown Cow?

Forced to play Russian Roulette with their homes, by the High Court’s refusal to grant them the protection of the Aarhus Convention (People’s Access to Justice) in advance of the Hearing  relating to Waverley’s Housing numbers next week our mole inside the PoW camp tells us),  Protect our Waverley is becoming increasingly desperate in their attempts to avert a potential catastrophe.

Bob Lies and Co’s costs may not be limited to the £10,000 it had hoped under the convention mentioned above, but they will not know until the Judge has ruled on the day.

As our Dunsfold Correspondent points out, this gives a whole new meaning to the phrase ‘Mi casa su casa’! Protect our Little Corner of the Borough has penned yet another open letter to Waverley Borough Council, literally begging it to allow POW to save face:

30th September 2018
Dear Councillor Potts and Mr Horwood

WHY WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL SHOULD CONCEDE THE S113 APPEAL

POW is writing to ask you to withdraw the defence of the housing numbers in Part 1 of the Local Plan in the interests of all the residents of the Borough.

Conceding our case will allow WBC to re-calculate the numbers on the basis of the new household projections published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) on 20th September 20181. Barton Willmore has calculated 2, using the new NPPF ‘Standard Method’, that the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for Waverley is 27% lower than the Government’s comparable figure based on 2014 data 3. Over the 19 year Plan period, this equates to a very significant reduction of over 3,000 dwellings.

Furthermore, these calculations show that Woking’s unmet need has disappeared.

You have both claimed that if CPRE and POW succeed in their challenge, then the Local Plan will fall and the protections it provides will be removed. That fear is unfounded.

There is legal precedence that part of a Plan can be changed without affecting the remainder. In the case of William Davis Ltd and Others v Charnwood Borough Council (2017), Gilbart J concluded: “I am not willing to strike down other policies whose provenance was not contested before me. I shall, therefore, limit the relief granted to the quashing of that policy.”
A lower OAN will make it easier to meet the 5 year supply requirement, adding additional protection against unwanted and inappropriate development in the longer term.
WBC must avail itself of this unique opportunity to revise down its housing numbers presented by the High Court Challenges being brought by CPRE and POW, rather than wait until the 5-year review of the Plan in 2023. If it fails to do this, large sections of our beautiful Borough will be ruined by unneeded development – on Green Belt, on Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Areas of Great Landscape Value – and future residents will be condemned to live in totally unsustainable locations.

Your duty, as political leader and Chief Executive of Waverley Borough Council respectively, is to protect the interests of Waverley’s residents, now and in the future. You will singularly fail in that duty if you do not take advantage of this unique opportunity to make an early amendment to Part 1 of your Local Plan by conceding the s113 Appeal. The benefits of adopting the reduced quota are significant – both for your Council and your electorate.

Yours sincerely

Bob Lees

cc Uncle Tom Cobbley et al.

Interesting that this missive was penned – no doubt in some haste! – after PoW’s latest Pass-the-Begging-Bowl-Bash at The Sun Inn on Dunsfold Common last week. The Waverley Web attended the event and, bearing in mind the number of cobwebs in the cavernous ceiling of The Sun, Incy-Wincy may well have gone undetected … 

But, given Capt’n Bob is – yet again – appealing to Waverley to surrender to PoW’s bobleesdemands and ditch the High Court battle PoW started (!), we can only assume the Fund Raiser didn’t go too well  and Capt’n Bob is desperate not to have to employ the services of Cranleigh Removals at Casa Lees!

The WW is beginning to feel almost sorry for him. He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t!

Scenario 1: He can’t tell the High Court Judge – hand on heart – that he represents the majority of residents in the Borough – as he likes to brag! – if he doesn’t have a bank balance bursting with local residents’ contributions to prove it! After all, where is all this alleged support if the raggle-taggle PoW is surviving hand-to-mouth?

Scenario 2:  On the other hand, if he can and does demonstrate that he’s well funded by his enthusiastic and numerous supporters – rather than just a handful of high-rollers who object to the pollution of their Surrey Hills by an influx of affordable housing for the great unwashed (or, to paraphrase OJ, AKA Charles William Orange Esq of Hascombe Place, who objects to the creation of ‘a sink estate’ on his doorstep at Dunsfold Park) and write big cheques – then why shouldn’t the Judge insist PoW funds its own beef with Waverley BC rather than the Tax Payer having to foot the bill for them?

Oh what a tangled web POW  weaves whilst practising to deceive!

 

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

Guildford allocates 42 homes a year for Woking.

wwbreakingnews

Guildford Borough Council has allocated an extra 42 houses per annum to its revised Local Plan to help meet Woking’s unmet need. It has agreed to the Planning Inspector’s recommendations, just as Waverley has, which lead to the current Judicial Review. Guildford will now have to build 672 homes a year, up from the previous 654 planned last year.

guildford42

The report (here)  and annexe here goes to the Guildford Executive on 4th September for the recommendation, with a 6-week consultation to follow. The report explains that:

Woking’s unmet housing need is 225 homes a year
Waverley was directed to take 83 homes a year by the Inspector
Guildford will take an extra 42 houses a year

Screen Shot 2018-08-29 at 11.40.37Waverley Web asks? – Does this undermine the current action from CPRE and PoW? Guildford says it is more constrained than Waverley in taking this housing. Does such precedence now pull the rug from under this appeal?

Perhaps the best outcome is a reduction in Waverley’s numbers between 42 and 83? Will that justify the apparent extra £300,000 set aside by Waverley to fight this JR?
What if the judge says Waverley is MUCH LESS constrained than Guildford – might Waverley’s numbers actually GO UP? (Not again!!)

Another 462 houses for Farnham?

wwbreakingnews

 Farnham Town Council has launched its public consultation on potential new housing sites in Farnham. They have to find at least another 450 houses over the next 15 years to comply with the revised Waverley Plan Part 1.
(Unless the current Judicial Review to the Plan reduces Waverley’s allocation of Woking’s unmet need – which could be as little as – oh – about 450!)

Here’s the map of Farnham showing the proposed new housing sites (all on brownfield) and their capacities. The other coloured sites are ones identified by Farnham in their previous 2017 Neighbourhood Plan.

FarnhamNP-new800

Here is the breakdown of those sites – you can respond to Farnham’s consultation here.

Screen Shot 2018-08-21 at 12.59.41

At first glance, all we can say is well done for finding enough Brownfield sites and all within the built-up area boundary. It’s a shame the roads are so terrible that you can’t accommodate Cranleigh and the eastern villages allocation too!

Now we all know why ‘YW’ wanted to move its training services into the Memorial Hall.

Read more from the Farnham Herald here: IMG_2913.JPG

The Campaign For The Protection of some parts of rural England’s hypocrisy​ is legendary!

While Waverley’s green fields and green belt are currently sinking, or about to sink under concrete, this once-respected national organisation is whining about the lack of affordable housing and the need for local authorities to grant permissions on brownfield sites!

 

The very same hypocritical outfit that has joined forces with the local NIMBYs – some of whom are DEVELOPERS themselves, to take ‘Your Waverley,’ to the High Court – limiting their own costs to just £10,000 while wasting shedloads of our council tax, simply because they are supporting a Local Plan which includes development in their backyards at Dunsfold Aerodrome. One of the biggest brownfield sites this side of London!

cpreonbrownfield.jpg

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?

All the Rumpoles will have their wheelbarrows at the ready to trouser the taxpayers’ cash being poured into their oversized pant pockets – however, what’s the old saying – “he who laughs last laughs longest.” Because one of Waverley’s famous four (Milford Man) who challenged the Local Plan – has had his fingers slightly singed  – and his bank balance reduced, by a High Court decision to award Waverley their costs!

Oops – the judge also refused to give the other challengers the assurances they crave that their costs will be limited to £10,000 for a judicial review to be held in the Autumn! 

The mutter in the gutter around Alfold/Dunsfold/Hascombe/Loxwood/Chiddingfold is that some of the parish councils who have used their money to prime the legal pump have had enough and are not stumping up any more of their parish precept to fund the ‘impossible fight!’

In the meantime, while the birds sing, and the planes continue to fly at the airfield – Cranleigh is turning into one big building site and the only caterpillars are of the tractor species.

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

Thank heaven there are a few councillors left at Waverley that care about – the new town they have dubbed – ‘Poor Old Cranleigh.”

Just a handful of councillors – abstained – from supporting the layout and landscaping of Miller Homes consented application to build 120 three and four storey homes on the former Hewitts Industrial Estate in Elmbridge Road – why didn’t they vote against it is anyone’s guess? Do they get to feel Betty’s Appealing Boot if they dare oppose a scheme which was described by a string of councillors as:

“AWFUL” “THE WORST DESIGN I HAVE EVER SEEN,” “FOUR STOREY BLOCKS LIKE LINES OF CARAVANS.’ ‘MONOCHROME,’ ” A DESIGN THAT IS SO UNIMAGINATIVE IT IS RIDICULOUS.” ‘DIDN’T THINK IN WAVERLEY WE WOULD BE BUILDING IDENTIKIT HOMES,” ‘HOMES THAT LOOK LIKE SOMETHING OUT OF THE HOBITT.’ “NEVER SEEN ANYTHING SO UNINSPIRING.” 

Here’s `Kevin Deanus Councillor for Alfold.

 

Screen Shot 2018-07-30 at 19.20.19.png

 

Screen Shot 2018-07-30 at 19.21.00.png

However, Waverley was between a rock and a hard place after a Government Inspector over-ruled its refusal and allowed the application to turn the former light industrial estate into a housing estate! But surely with a bit of negotiation, they could have persuaded the developer to provide something more suitable?

Even Elizabeth Townsend – Chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council appeared unperturbed that the former industrial estate, which will further urbanise the once rural area of west Cranleigh, and change it beyond recognition. But she did voice her concerns about landscaping near the entrance, the treatment of the ancient woodland, and the possible overlooking of cottages nearby by such large buildings.

However, 17 members of the Joint Planning Committee granted the reserved matters with four abstentions – so life goes on over there as another set of bulldozers and HGV’s roll into -“Poor Old Cranleigh!”

Here’s the village’s design statement for what it’s worth! And – here’s a decent Alfold Councillor Kevin Deanus telling the planners exactly what he thinks of the plan!

Screen Shot 2018-08-01 at 09.20.38.png