DENISE WORDSWORTH ‘OBJECT[S] IN THE STRONGEST TERMS’
Apparently, Ms Wordsworth’s views and that of others ‘have not been listened to … there are nearly 2000 objections to [the development of Dunsfold Park and] it is beholden on [Waverley’s] councillors to listen to those that voted them in.’
Be afraid, “Your Waverley,” be very afraid, Ms Wordsworth doesn’t like your plans to develop 1,800 houses at the old Aerodrome and she’s a woman who, seemingly, knows how to construct an essay of an objection. Never was a woman more aptly named!
And before anyone thinks we’re picking on Ms Wordsworth, for the record, Waverley Web agrees with her assessment that the Council’s handbrake about turn in respect of Dunsfold Park’s proposals is a ‘knee jerk / lazy reaction to its need to supply additional housing required for the new Local Plan. And, the easiest means to do this is create a New Settlement. However, it is disingenuous to claim that the proposed development is being dumped in a ‘remote rural location in the SE of the county – where the population is low and the voices are not as loud as those in Farnham, Haslemere, Godalming, etc.’
No one has been more vociferous than Alfold, Bramley, Chiddingfold, Dunsfold and Hascombe. Indeed, the litter-louts have been out in force this week-end in Bramley erecting more of their garish banners objecting to Dunsfold Park New Town.
Waverley Web has said it before and we’ll say it again: you need planning permission to erect bloody great banners that desecrate the beautiful villages that Ms Wordsworth and her comrades are so keen to protect. Self-righteous indignation is no excuse for flouting planning regulations – whose protection PoW and their supporters are no doubt keen to claim the minute they believe Dunsfold Park has put a foot out of line. Perhaps they should bear in mind when flyposting that what’s sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander!
‘SAVE BRAMLEY’S CHILDREN’ proclaims one of the yellow perils (otherwise known as PoW posters).
Er, from what? Bramley isn’t a third world village … although to hear PoW talk, you could be forgiven for thinking it is: narrow, pot-hole ridden roads that are unsuitable for vehicles and HGVs, flooding and sewage problems …
Until they want to sell their houses that is! Then Bramley, morphs into the Belgravia of Surrey! And, miraculously, the Dunsfold-Park-blighted 45-minute journey into Guildford becomes a miraculous 10-minute hop, skip and a jump with its excellent transport links!
‘SAY NO TO MORE HGVs’ screeches another poster. Do they not want HGVs in Bramley, delivering fuel to the Esso petrol station, supplies to the Nisa store in the village centre transporting goods to M&S and Sainsbury’s in Cranleigh? But of course Bramley residents don’t object to their own needs being met by these HGVs, it’s other people’s needs they object to. We have two words for those people: GROW UP! Bramley isn’t an island – if you want to live on one move to the Outer Hebrides.
Look, we sympathise Ms Wordsworth, we really do, honestly, and Waverley Web has never made any secret of the fact that it despairs of Waverley Borough Council, but we fully support the Government’s policy of BROWNFIELD FIRST!
The last couple of years – indeed the last couple of weeks – have amply demonstrated that Cranleigh simply cannot take any more development unless and until someone – preferably the developers concerned – do something about the lack of infrastructure. The sewage system and the power network are at breaking point in that optimistically self-styled village – indeed we would argue that they are broken. And, as many Alfold residents know to their cost, having sewage gurgling up into the bath and the dishwasher during heavy rainfall is no joke.
Nor, for that matter, is losing green fields (think Amlets Lane), after green field (think Horsham Road), after green field (think Knowle Lane ) to development – especially when there is a perfectly good 600-acre brownfield site immediately adjacent to the A281, that’s ripe for redevelopment.
The reality is that whilst the A281 does suffer from a degree of congestion during the rush hour, so does every other A-road in the county not to mention the country and recent surveys reveal that delays through Bramley ,whilst not ideal, are minor compared to delays suffered by people in Farnham and other parts of the borough.
We’re sorry to break it to you all, but 2,000 objectors to Dunsfold Park isn’t that significant; in fact, it’s so embarrassingly small we’re surprised you even mention it. Waverley has a population of 115,665 (according to the last census) and you think 2,000 objections is a lot? Hello?! We suggest you wake up and do the maths! Of course, in an ideal world, we’d all like to pull up the drawbridge and preserve Alfold, Bramley, Chiddingfold, Cranleigh, Dunsfold, Farnham, Godalming, Hascombe, et al exactly as they are but that’s what every generation has wanted since time in memorial and if they’d succeeded very few of us would be able to enjoy living in those villages now!
We know you’ve put a lot of time and thought into your objections, Ms Wordsworth, and we are in awe of your diligence and patience – we really are – but, frankly, the next generation won’t thank you for it.
But the same cannot be said for most. Because ready prepared letters that just require a a tick and a stamp are being thrust through residents’ letterboxes, in readiness to fill more landfill.
Unfortunately, we need more homes and in Waverley suitable locations are limited. Whether we like it or not – and, yes, we know you don’t – Dunsfold Park offers the best option of an admittedly bad bunch. Instead of railing against it why not embrace the alternative view and be grateful that Waverley has this huge brownfield site and consider encouraging ‘Your Waverley” to build on it to so save our precious green fields and create homes that won’t be a drain on an existing, fragile,infrastructure?
You speak of views spoilt from Hascombe Hill. Why not turn that thought on its head and consider the stunning views to Hascombe and Pitch Hills residents of the new settlement could have from their village?
So how about it, Ms Wordsworth, why not embrace the scheme and even – whisper who dares – encourage Dunsfold Park to contribute to the reintroduction of the Horsham to Guildford railway line and solve a lot of the existing problems on the A281 into the bargain?! Really, when you think about it – really think about it – it’s a no-brainer. But, you know where the objectors to that particular scheme live – yes, you guessed – BRAMLEY!
Another Protect our Farnham rant from Waverley Web! I don’t think anybody this side of the borough has any time for the gibberish being spouted any more.
Ms Wordsworth is certainly very good with words, but that’s backed up with knowing the FACTS about the DP application and the many reasons why this application should be rejected, again!
This constant peddling of DP as being ‘brownfield’…the only reason the supporters of the application, and Rutland Group/DAL and Trinity are forever crying ‘brownfield’ is because it conveniently suits their weak arguments, or greed for the project. Dunsfold Aerodrome was mistakenly ‘classified’ as ‘brownfield’ by Waverley many years ago for their own ends, no doubt aided by some backhanders! This was at a time when there was so much less of the business park on the site than there is now, and even more of the countryside/farmland left within its boundaries. You know that ‘brownfield’ is defined as ‘previously developed land’ (PDL), which in the case of DP is the runway and the buildings, nothing more. There’s never any mention, is there, by the supporters, of the swathes of grassland (I believe they still make hay there; a reminder of the farmland it should have been returned to after the war), the trees, and the PROTECTED ancient woodland that the developers want to rip out! Just take a look at the recent ariel footage of the area and you will see just how much IS NOT BROWNFIELD.
Talking figures…you say 2000 objections isn’t significant (there will be a lot more soon I think), how about the just 3.3% of the borough’s 115,665 population that responded to Waverley’s heavily Developer led consultation of 2014, that the applicant regularly claims as 80% of the population wanting this development to go ahead?! Talk about spin!
It’s also forgotten by the supporters (or perhaps they don’t want to know), that on more than one occasion, DP have been found to have begun unauthorised building/changes (i.e.recent new track changes), WITHOUT planning permission and then have to stop when they’re caught and it’s reported to Waverley, or they go for retrospective planning permission. So gleefully boasting that planning permission is needed, and WBC coming down so heavily handed on the peaceful protests of banners on private land, smacks massively of double standards, don’t you think? Besides, what’s a few banners and posters perhaps looking a bit ugly for a while, as opposed to losing the look, feel, makeup and character of the surrounding villages forever!
As for ‘views from their ‘village’…what ‘village’?!…it’s a NEW TOWN! Have you seen the architecture?,….and no I don’t mean the fuzzy watercolours produced by the developers, accompanied by romantic words. The homes are packed in like sardines, apart from the no doubt million pound 4 or 5 bedrooms ones, with the ‘crescent’ being 4 storeys high, and two 30 meter towers on the site. That’s not like any kind of village round here. This dreamy, low carbon foot print, cycling everywhere, car sharing, cheap housing bonanza is a myth peddled by the greedy developers for your approval.
All of the surrounding villages will be ruined if this development gets the go ahead, and it’ll be the beginning of the infill of every piece of land between Alfold and Guildford, and we’ll all be living in suburbia, and not the countryside we want to enjoy and protect. Yes we need more homes, yes we need them to be 1,2 and 3 bedroom ‘affordable’ flats/houses, not the 4,5 or 6 bedroom million pound mansions that pepper this area, but they should be spread evenly throughout the whole of the borough, fairly, not squashed into one rural corner, which is poorly served by inadequate infrastructure. They shouldn’t be building another single home anywhere in the Cranleigh/Alfold area until they sort out the sewers to be able to cope with thousands of new homes, let alone the other infrastructure.
Those who support this application need to recognise and think about the terrible consequences of the things they selfishly wish for.
Oh WW – Really … You know I value your comments – But did you have to make such a Big deal about me and my name – Bit disingenuous you could have just said “angry from Alfold”….
Are you trying to ensure that all the opposition know who I am ? and where I live ? Looking out for Bricks in Our Grade II Listed Building Windows any day now!! – You give MY name out – what is YOURS and where do you LIVE??
I had planned to have a banner – But missed the delivery – Tried to make my own – But printer decided the only colours it is willing to do are PINK and BLACK so no hope there.
I HAVE Objected to both the DP application and the Local Plan because BOTH are flawed and I am sure you have read them and will know they are – not just because of DP but all the applications and amendments to Green Belt and LHH sites. all over the county – YES we have to have some development – but the JPC have a new report based on more up to date figures that dispute WBC’s Housing requirement – Something I think is quite important – Don’t you?? You haven’t mentioned it.
WBC’s Local Plan is filled with inconsistencies and Rubbish and I am embarrassed to have that sort information put on-line by OUR WAVERLEY
Don’t think we don’t care about you here in the Bondies…. We do but we just care a little more about the fact there is more proposed development here in Alfold/Dunsfold/Cranleigh then there is in the more suited larger settlements and I am afraid that does include Farnham – But you do have all the infrastructure we DO NOT – Please do not Mention to “Possible Buses” – you of all people know what if anything this means.
I do understand you have a lot of issues with WBC and their complete lack of accountability with developments in Farnham – and I get your anger – and I am sure if you asked for support from other parishes you would get it if those smaller parishes felt Farnham gave a F**** about us – But we are left feeling that we are the least important or vocal (apart from POW) part of the county and our needs are not being addressed.
Please stop slating us – We really are just the little villages in the most rural part of the county and Dunsfold will crucify us – with regard to the transport infrastructure and there is nothing you can say will mitigate this – You have seen the stats so PLEASE do not say there is going to be COMMUNITY FACILITIES/ Shops/ Restaurants/Pubs/Takeways – if you do I will re-direct you to the DP site and get hugely grumpy!
I had hoped one day all the Parish Councils could be united but I fear that is in La La Land and there is always going to be this division – UNTIL we can all agree that the issue is NOT between the various Towns and Villages but Between US and WBC.
SO WW – I challenge you with all of your resources to try and bring US ALL TOGETHER to FIGHT this – IF that is what you want – and it isn’t only all about protecting Farnham and Cranleigh – (which is worthy) – But you still say DP is OK which WILL Affect Cranleigh – (You and Mary need to get a handle on this!!)
As ever
Denise Wordsworth
By he way I am also known as Mrs Lord in case that confuses you!!!