Tag: PoW

How now POW’s (cash) cow?

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!

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!!)

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

COULD DINOSAURS COME BACK TO CRANLEIGH?

 

Screams the headline on the Cranleigh edition of the Sorry Advertiser. How we all love the silly season – particularly when some of the WW is away lounging on sunbeds in the Scilly Isles!

Unlikely, says the Waverley Web … because they’re alive and well, chewing the fat of the land in Alfold, Chiddingfold, Dunsfold & Hascombe. They lurk behind hedges in their million-pound mansions and they wouldn’t dream of slumming it in the emerging New Town that Waverley Councillors now refer to as Poor-Old-Cranleigh!

Screen Shot 2018-07-27 at 23.22.24.png

These Dinosaurs, who evolved from Stop Dunsfold Park New Town into Protect our Waverley (all in the interests of self-preservation you understand) have fought tooth-and-nail for the past 10 years to preserve their own villages in aspic, at the expense of the rest of the Borough – Cranleigh  Godalming, and Farnham in particular.

On a serious note, Fossils Galore (no, we didn’t make that up, but we might well pinch it as our new sobriquet for PoW!) are hoping to secure support for a dedicated museum and activity centre following the discovery of the full skeleton of an Iguanodon dinosaur at the Wienerberger factory in Ewhurst last year. Didn’t they know most of the old fossils are already sitting in the Natural History Museum in London?

The Waverley Web thinks it’s a great idea but strongly recommends Fossils Galore waits on the results of PoW’s Judicial Review because, if unsuccessful, they could find themselves with a cartload of prehistoric beasts to add to their collection:

• Pride of Place in the exhibition could be given to the Velociraptur – otherwise, know as ‘Crap-Peddler-in-Chief’ Bob Lies
• Tyrannosaurus – otherwise known as Tyrant-in-Chief Peppa-Pig, who hasn’t got a good word – let alone a nice one to say for anyone! Anyone for a chipolata?
• Spinosaurus – Spinmeisters-in-Chief Chris Britton & Sarah Sullivan

Clearly, it’s the Silly Season in the sticks!