Dear Mr/Mrs hot and bothered about … yes, you guessed… Dunsfold… again!


We ‘ve  said it before and we’ll say it again the Waverley Web sympathises with those who object to the development of Dunsfold Park – we really, really, really,  do – but you have to wake up and smell the coffee in Farnham, the sewage in Cranleigh, the traffic fumes in Godalming… etc… even Waverly Borough Council has and, God knows, they resisted it long enough!


To our hot and bothered follower whose  comments are below: You may not like the fact that the Aerodrome was ‘classified’ as ‘brown field’ and – a friendly word of warning here – we strongly urge you to be very careful throwing around libellous allegations about that classification.  We have redacted that part of the comment – that is unless, of course, you have evidence to that effect, in which case, we’re all ears!

 The fact remains no amount of wishful thinking or breast-beating is going to turn back the clock. Enough people have tried running that argument – all the way to the High Court – and lost every step of the way.

So… Let’s try to be grown up about this, and let’s get this straight and please remember we loathe developers just as much as you all do, but the fact is – PEOPLE NEED HOMES IN ‘YOUR WAVERLEY.’ AND… THEY WILL EITHER BE BUILT ON BROWNFIELD SITES OR IN THE COUNTRYSIDE. Can we make it any plainer?

We are where we are and as far as the owners of DP, Waverley Borough Council and the law of the land is concerned Dunsfold Park is now a bona fide Brown Field Site. So our advice to you and your fellow objectors is to get over it,  and embrace the opportunity to resolve the borough’s housing problems without concreting over our precious green fields and bolting on housing to existing villages until they all morph into towns.

We stand by our view that 2,000 objections isn’t significant out of a population of 115,665 – it’s a fact. We also share your view that there will be a lot more soon – especially as protestors in Bramley have erected posters claiming development at Dunsfold Park will add 41 minutes to journeys on the A281! And you want to talk about spin???!!! What’s that all about? We’d dearly love to know where that statistic was plucked from because we can’t find it anywhere … Read post: Fifty Shades Sexed Up!

This is what Mr/Mrs/Miss Hot and Bothered said: however we have removed the potentially libellous comments.

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 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx !

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!

  “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.

2 thoughts on “Dear Mr/Mrs hot and bothered about … yes, you guessed… Dunsfold… again!”

  1. The application at Dunsfold should be refused. Waverley Borough Council commissioned Mott MacDonald to do numerous transport reports, so this is based on a report from transport experts directly commissioned by WBC. One section is titled “Assessment of Transport Sustainability” which compares and contrasts transport issues based on housing developments in Cranleigh, Farnham and Dunsfold. Quoting directly from the report “Based on the above analysis, Farnham is considered to be the most sustainable location overall for provision of new homes”…

  2. Yes of course – let’s build anywhere on Waverley’s green and pleasant lands, preferably in Farnham – rather than on a brown field site that one way or the other – WILL be developed!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.