"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when once we practise to deceive.
Milford man is just one of the band of three challenging Waverley’s Local Plan. Read it by clicking on the link below.
Did you Spot the big House house in the bottom right-hand corner right next door!
But remember CPRE – more land in Surrey is under Golf Courses than housing – at the moment:
Together with the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the ineptly named Mr & Mrs House (seriously, you couldn’t make that one up!!!) PoW have launched a legal challenge over the adoption of Waverley’s Local Plan!
Call us cynical but we – and pretty much everyone else who knows anything about it – suspect that this is POW’s cunning ploy to scupper the planning consent just granted to Dunsfold Park. The infamous Bob Lies and cohorts are simply re-running the same old, same old arguments they ran at the recent Dunsfold Park Inquiry.
ANOTHER circa £200,000 down the borough drains!
As for CPRE, their knickers are knotted over Woking’s unmet housing need, which was added to Waverley’s numbers, resulting in an additional 83 houses per annum to Waverley’s target. OK, we get it, it’s not ideal but what CPRE fails to tell the public in its indignant, self-righteous justification for its actions is, that if it gets leave to appeal, not only will that leave Waverley totally exposed because it won’t have an adopted Local Plan but residents will have to cough up circa £200,000 to defend CPRE’s action!
No wonder Potts has gone off on one! She said: ‘I am appalled that we have to spend money on legal expenses AGAIN when we could be spending it on services – £200k at a time when, as a council, we face enormous financial challenges and are doing our utmost to deliver and protect key frontline services for our residents.’
Too damn right! And as Waverley council tax payers, we at the Waverley Web fully endorse, Potts’ assertion that the Council will ‘pursue full reimbursement of all legal costs we incur [and] these campaigning pressure groups must understand that this irresponsible abuse of public money will not be tolerated by Waverley Borough Council and its residents.’
We never thought we would find ourselves saying this but – deep breath –
‘THREE CHEERS FOR POTTS!’
Now here’s a thought: why not give CPRE £200,000 to go away? After all, we all know these so-called rural campaigners are open to a spot of bribery!
We’ve all heard the one about how Clive Smith, the Surrey Hills AONB Planning Adviser (and bosom buddy of CPRE, whose AONB Board he sits on) repeatedly objected to Lakshmi Mittal’s £30 million mansion that he wanted to build in the Surrey Hills until, finally, finally, FINALLY, the billionaire took the oft repeated hints dropped by Mr Smith and his colleagues and greased the palm of the Surrey Hills Trust with £250,000 of silver and then suddenly – but entirely unsurprisingly – Mr Smith did a complete volte face and withdrew all his objections! Result! A win for the Surrey Hills AONB and a win for Mr Mittal, who got his planning permission.
The hypocritical Clive Smith even went so far as to sing for his cheque by rocking up at the billionaire’s estate, quaffing his Champagne whilst bad mouthing all other development in the Surrey Hills! We know we’re repeating ourselves but, seriously folks, you couldn’t make it up! if only these people could see themselves as others see them … Now you know where Cheque book Clive got his sobriquet!
So there you have it, Leader Potts, it’s just a thought but why not take a leaf out of Mr Mittal’s book and call down to the Accounts Department and ask them to write CPRE a cheque for £200k to make them go away? OK, you won’t save any money but you’ll save yourself and your officers a shed-load of work and stress and you could save local residents from having several concrete mixers full of more housing dumped on us!
Eh?
Durrrh! You really need to read the small print!
What CPRE’s Surrey Director, Andy Smith, didn’t tell us when he was sounding off, is that if Waverley’s Local Plan fails and a new one has to be created Waverley could end up with even higher housing numbers being dumped on its green and pleasant fields because the Government will shortly be bringing out yet another new method for calculating housing numbers so we could end up with even more houses rather than less!!!
The words Be careful what you wish for come to mind …
While Farnham man rejoiced, Milford Man WAS BUSY TRYING TO SCUPPER THAT DAMNED PLAN!
Some would argue that amidst the growing hullabaloo about a lack of affordable housing. The Tories’ alleged commitment to riding roughshod over the concerns of NIMBY residents and Councils’ in their determination to show they care – really, REALLY care! – about the housing crisis, there was no way they could afford to turn this application down but, by God, they’ve had a bloody good try!
Mistress Anne Milton, MP for Guildford, has made no bones about her opposition to the scheme from the get-go and – despite her colleague Dominic Raab’s call for ‘more affordable homes’ to ‘restore the dream of homeownership.’ She openly boasted how she’d whipped S of S Javid into calling in the planning application in the hope he would overturn Waverley Council’s decision in December 2016 to grant consent.
Rumour has it, deep in the burrow of the Burys, that Council Leader, Julia Potts, was so incensed at Mistress Milton’s unwarranted interference, that the two fell out BIG time!
A week to the day Jeremy Hunt, MP for South West Surrey was outed by The Sun as a budding buy-to-let property-mogul – with more than a casual interest in keeping would-be homeowners tied into the rental market. Now – Javid, it would seem, has finally grown a pair and told his erstwhile colleagues they not only need to toe the party line but be seen to toe the party line in their own constituencies!
But a word of caution to the Flying Scot before he starts doing the Highland Fling:
Waverley Web has no doubt as we write, Protect our little Corner of Awfold, Duncefold, Ker-Chingfold and Where-Has–All-the-Traffic-Combe-From is dusting off its begging bowls and door-stepping its supporters, asking them to dig deep – just one more time! WHY? To fund the final leg of its marathon act of NIMBYISM, to launch a Judicial Review of both the Dunsfold Park decision and the Local Plan!
Surely not, we hear you say! Why not?
With cheer-leader-in-chief’s Mistress Milton’s backing, and a bit of behind the bikesheds manoeuvring from Jeremy Shunt-All-the-Houses elsewhere, these suburban terrorists – yes, we did say suburban! This is Surrey, an extension of Greater London, not deepest-darkest-Dorset – have, for in excess of 10 long years, waged a very successful campaign to deny the children and grandchildren of their less-well-off neighbours any opportunity of getting a foothold on the property ladder within spitting distance of Awfold, Duncefold, Ker-Chingfold, etc and anywhere in between.
After all, it’s only 18 years since BAE Systems vacated Dunsfold Aerodrome … so what’s the hurry to make a decision about its future? We need to consult, consult, and CONSULT… with the dormouse (AKA Sarah Sullivan), the Bat (AKA Councillor Betty Ames), the Bullfrogs (AKA Councillor Betty Ames and the Leader of PoW, Bob Lees) not to mention Uncle Tom Cobbley (AKA Squire Orange) … get the picture?
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, China plans to build 66 new airports in the next five years. And we wonder why we lost an Empire and are a declining world power … Go figure!
Isn’t it time PoW and the ilk stopped the monotonous moaning, got over themselves and embraced Sajid Javid’s decision and, in the words of the Beetles: [Just] let it be …
Although the CCS chairman claimed that consent had already been granted for 1,800 homes WW believes he meant that Waverley planners had granted consent. A final decision by the Secretary of State for Communities is expected next week 29th March. The Local Plan includes a figure of 2,600.
Over here in Farnham, we learned from our Cranleigh followers that concern is growing for the new town that nestles in the Surrey Hills! So much so, that with 1,357 homes already consented, there are fears that with many more to come, both there, and in the surrounding villages, the local infrastructure will not cope!
CRANLEIGH”S RECENT FLOOD FORUM NEWS.
MP Anne Milton and her Flood Forum team which including representatives from Thames Water, Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council responded to questions which had been sent to her in advance, including those from the Cranleigh Civic Society. She said she, and concerned villagers, now wanted some answers.
She urged the public to look at Cranleigh Parish Council’s website for news. http://www.cranleighpc.org/_VirDir/CoreContents/News/Display.aspx?id=11210
Around 60 people, including a handful of borough/or parish councillors heard from the ‘experts’ of any progress made since the last meeting.
Present: The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP (Chair); Waverley Borough Council (WBC): William Gibb, Planning Enforcement; Nick Laker, Engineer; Beverley Bell, Clerk, Cranleigh Parish Council; Sarah Coleby, Office of Anne Milton MP; Nishad Sowky, Thames Water; Paul Hudson, Environment Agency (EA); Tor Peebles, Surrey County Council (SCC); Parish Councillors – Brian Freeston; Angela Richardson; and borough councillor Patricia Ellis.
MISCONNECTIONS TO THE MAINS
Nishad Sowky, Thames Water said this was an ongoing battle and his organisation relied heavily upon intelligence provided by the public. A specialist engineer had been appointed and action planned. However, he stressed, TW couldn’t enforce any action required only Waverley Borough Council was permitted to do this. It was suggested homeowners should be required to provide evidence of approval if it was believed illegal connections had been made.
It was revealed that Cranleigh’s foul sewer was inundated with surface water or ingress from groundwater. With more housing, it was suggested that 12 times dry weather flow may be required, and a total upgrade was required to accommodate both current housing and the large-scale development now approved.
Database:
Cllr Townsend had previously requested a hotspot database be provided as she believed that residents local knowledge was crucial in identifying problems. These should be reported to the Parish Council, in addition to the relevant agencies, e.g. Thames Water/WBC’s Environmental Health/Environment Agency as appropriate.
Cranleigh Waters: Thames Water confirmed that the wet weather flow is 10 times the dry weather flow – whereas tank capacity is 6 times dry weather flow.
PLANNING
Waverley planners reported that the Local Plan includes a general policy on avoiding pollution and included measures for mitigating flooding.
It was stressed that flooding occurred less when the EA maintained the river, and that annual maintenance was vital. The importance of Riparian owners honouring their responsibilities was stressed, but the EA should move any obstructions whenever a specific flood risk existed.
William Gibb, Planning Enforcement Waverley, suggested that some junior planning officers also lacked sufficient knowledge of drainage issues.
Mr Peebles also reiterated his claim that the National Standard for Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) were not fit for purpose and gave as an example of a development on the river Test in Hampshire, where (SUDS) provided for new properties had now flooded! After receiving his letter on SUDS standards, the MP said she would take his concerns to a Government Minister.
LOCAL ISSUES
Cranleigh Waters: Thames Water confirmed it had written to the owner of West Cranleigh Nurseries who, it is alleged, had illegally dredged the river. He said Waverley planners were aware of the breach and conditions would be imposed when its detailed planning application for the first phase of 265 homes was considered!
Planning Applications: The Cranleigh Society remained concerned about developments granted planning permission with no apparent objection by the EA, SCC or Thames Water, particularly the Thakeham Homes development.
Residents said it was ‘a disgrace’ that planners and the EA preferred to accept a developers evidence over anecdotal and photographic evidence provided by residents. Work was carried out by Adrian Clarke (Cranleigh Society) and Doug Hill (SCC) in 2015 to map the floodplain, including collecting and providing photographic evidence. They claimed this had not been properly considered and taken into account by SCC as the lead Flood Authority.
The MP said she would seek a meeting with Thakeham Homes and Cranleigh representatives.
DRINKING WATER CONCERNS
Thames Water claimed blue asbestos found in Cranleigh’s pipes were not a danger to public health. as there was a very low concentration. However, 3.38 km of water pipes would be replaced. This includes Mapledrakes Road, Godalming Road; Satchel Court Road; Barhatch Lane, Sapte Close, and Cromwell Road.
The meeting heard that a response from The World Health Organisation through The Drinking Water Inspectorate (Sue Pennison) was still awaited. Residents commented that New Zealand and Australia were not waiting for the WHO’s decision, but had begun a huge replacement programme!
Upon some of which, we have commented.
Cranleigh Civic Society (CCS) received a grumbling letter; a grumbling letter. You know the type, it was probably signed ‘Disgusted of Dunsfold’ and it went something like this:
Let’s talk about Community Infrastructure Levy now, at last, we have a LOCAL PLAN, but what does this mean?
An agreed LOCAL PLAN gives our planners at Waverley Borough Council the power to control future housing development; they can plan for the development of new infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, hospitals etc and, very importantly, it enables the Borough Council to charge house builders a COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY, known as CIL for short.
What is CIL?
CIL raises monies towards the cost of the new Infrastructure needed for the developments to go ahead. What a wonderful step forward we all exclaim!! And so it is. But what of the housing already approved? approaching 2000 houses throughout the Borough. Well, unfortunately:
CIL is not retrospective.
How much will Waverley charge?
So as the consultation period is still running, there is no CIL Schedule!
According to WBC’s website, Waverley’s draft proposal sets a CIL rate of £395/ Sq Metre of floor area for all new housing, (about £40,000 on an average 3-bed house), except, quite reasonably, for ‘Affordable Housing’ where there is no charge. So, taking the 35% of Affordable Housing the Borough is committed to build away from the approximately 2,000 houses so far approved, there will be a loss of CIL to the tune of at least £60 MILLION pounds! £60 MILLION pounds that will NOT be available to improve our ROADS, our SCHOOLS, our HOSPITALS, our BOROUGH!!
How could this have happened we may ask?
WW It happened because our planning officers at Waverley, under the direction of the Infamous Mrs MOP, Richard Shut-the-Gates and Robert Knowless, failed to come up with a plan that satisfied the Government’s criteria for a LOCAL PLAN.
How a Local Plan is developed by the Borough Planners
The basic criteria affecting local residents, as council tax payers, was to identify suitable sites for new housing. This has to satisfy central Government’s housing policy, a requirement that was for about 350 houses a year until 2032. Woking BC has had an agreed Local Plan for some years but that has now proved inadequate, so the inspector added a further 150 or so houses per year to WBC’s Local Plan to cover Woking’s shortfall! So WBC’s annual requirement rose to 509 houses until 2032 (a total of 7,126 houses) 35% of which must be ‘Affordable’. Plus a further rise to 590 was deemed necessary by the inspector when we last looked.
Of these 7,126 houses, a minimum of 4,300, rising to perhaps 5,000, are planned for CRANLEIGH and DUNSFOLD PARK, with the balance spread around the rest of the Borough; We have to ask – just how democratic is that?
Improvements to our Local Roads and Rail?
Perhaps we could have a new road to rescue us from the A281 blight? Unfortunately not! There will, however, be a new roundabout at Shalford, just 100 or so metres from the existing roundabout, which feels as if it will bring the traffic to a complete standstill; and the Elmbridge Road and Bramley crossroads junctions will be reconfigured, so that’s a relief!!! There will also be a new canal bridge at Elmbridge but no new bridge over the old Railway.
What of the Railway?
No plans whatsoever have been considered since SCC’s last feasibility study found not enough demand and that it wasn’t affordable.
What of DUNSFOLD AERODROME?
WW: There is a plan for 1,800 or so houses plus workspace, shops, a school, a medical centre, etc, which is languishing on the Secretary of State’s desk, awaiting Government approval or – as POW & the Rt Hon Mistress Milton sincerely hope and pray (after all, they’ve both lobbied hard enough!) dismissal. Oh, and in the future, if the Secretary of State doesn’t doff his cap and genuflect to POW and Mistress Milton there’s the prospect of an increase to 2,600 houses!
However, it seems that the developers have convinced the powers that be at Waverley that the development of Dunsfold would be jeopardised by the imposition of CIL on the whole development, so there will be NO CIL on the entire development – thereby saving the developers up to £100 MILLION over the life of the development – so that’s ok then.
So let’s hope the plan goes ahead fully and that our Planners use all their discretion to put right the wrongs – spreading the housing out more fairly – hunting for better sites…… they can – but will they?
WW. Says:
In the interest of accuracy – the WW does not want the Flying Scot coming after us with his sgian dubh (that’s dagger to us Sassenachs!), it is prudent of us to point out that under Dunsfold Park’s 106 contributions it will provide in excess of £50 MILLION towards highway improvements, school provision and improved leisure facilities in Cranleigh and other infrastructure improvements including a bus service – the first of its kind in the country, in perpetuity! Not to mention the obvious, affordable housing within the development.
Alfold Parish Council – which has opposed development – opposed pretty much everything – that has been proposed at Dunsfold Park also has the bare-faced cheek to be seeking £10 MILLION from the Dunsfold developers for infrastructure improvements. You couldn’t make it up, really, you couldn’t. No doubt the rest of the anti-Dunsfold Parish Councils will be lining up to follow suit but they’d best get their skates on as it’s now less than a month to go before the Secretary of State is due to deliver his decision on 31 March. The only question left is will he or won’t he bend to Mistress Milton and POW’s will? If he does both he and the Government’s housing policy will be a laughing-stock … but, never mind, Mistress Milton and POW will have had the last laugh and we’ll all know what we’ve long suspected: that he who pays the piper calls the tune!
And.. dare we mentioned it?
NO DUNSFOLD = A LOCAL PLAN WITH A BIG BROWN HOLE IN IT which = A BIG GREEN HOLE IN THE BOROUGH’S COUNTRYSIDE!