It would seem that we at Waverley Web are not the only ones to be a tad fed-up with former city-based lawyer Groucho Ground (AKA Alan Ground, former Chairman of Dunsfold Parish Council) dredging up old, dystopian arguments about Dunsfold Park’s unsuitability for housing development which are well past their sell by date – a bit like the man himself?


In a typically prosy letter, published in both the Farnham and Haslemere Heralds, Groucho Ground rehashes all the old prejudices that he and fellow anti-Dunsfold Park Campaigners keep harking back to.

Has no one told him that ship has sailed … that train has left the station … Elvis has left the building, along with Mrs MOP (AKA Mrs Pett-Orton)?

Wakey, wakey Groucho!  We’re living in a brave new world, one where Donald Trump is moving into the White House,  in which even Waverley Borough Council seems to recognise that it  might have to build a few houses in the borough and …. whisper it who dares …might even be seriously considering building some of them at Dunsfold Park!  Never mind how much you and your fellow Grumps grumble, “How dare they? Don’t they realise that Dunsfold is hallowed Ground?” No pun intended!

Groucho’s  letter is given the somewhat fancy title ‘Fallacies about Dunsfold status’ but the only ‘fallacies’ are those being pedalled by Mr Ground and the only question in the minds of those at Waverley Web is – to misquote his namesake Groucho Marx – “Who are [the readers of the Heralds] going to believe [Groucho Ground] or [their] own eyes?

What the Dunsfold Park Planning Appeal Inspector said in his conclusions, at Paragraph 358, was:

“The grassed areas in between the runways are functionally related to them. They provide safe run off areas for aircraft and a means of direct access to them for emergency vehicles. They are managed so as to maintain the necessary visibility for aircrew, air traffic controllers and emergency staff. They include a grass runway for aircraft that cannot land on concrete. These areas are all ancillary to and essential to the established use of the site. In short, the operational part of the aerodrome, including the runways and interstitial grassed areas, is

Screen Shot 2016-11-16 at 22.51.13.png

Our thanks to someone describing themselves as ‘Furious of Farnham’, who went back to the Inspector’s 2009 Report and diligently read it to ascertain whether Groucho’s  recollection of the Inspector’s report was as straightforward as he would like gullible readers of the Farnham and Haslemere Heralds to believe or whether, as ‘Furious of Farnham’ suspected, it was a very selective spot of cherry-picking! No prizes to regular readers of Waverley Web as to what he found; those who are against development at Dunsfold Park have proved themselves very adept at that particular skill!

Re-reading the Report was, apparently, a worthwhile exercise as ‘Furious of Farnham’ also came across another little gem at paragraph 387 which anti-Dunsfold Park veterans, like  (GG) tends to gloss over:

“Despite its disadvantageous location relative to the surrounding transport infrastructure, the appeal site has many advantages. When seen in the context of other options the appeal proposals may well prove to be the best solution for meeting the SEP [South East Plan] housing requirement. However, those other options have yet to be explored. The SEP had not even been approved at the time of the Inquiry and the Council does not yet have an adopted Core Strategy. The superiority of the appeal proposals cannot be assumed. A decision to allow the Eco-Village to proceed at this stage, prior to the formulation of the LDF [Local Development Framework], would be premature and would effectively pre-empt the proper consideration of alternatives as part of the develop [sic] planning process.”

Groucho  and his fellow Grumps need to get over themselves. The Inspector indicated that he felt the scheme was premature in relation to the Local Development Framework and recommended that it be taken forward and re-examined alongside other proposals. Which is what happened and, lo and behold, when told it was a straight forward choice between building on Dunsfold Park (AKA a brownfield site) or local green fields those who responded to Waverley Borough Council’s consultation voted with their pens and put Dunsfold Park at the top of their wish list for future housing development.

The anti’s are  like the Brexit-Bemoaners, flailing around mis-informing, mis-quoting and shamelessly cherry-picking reports in a belated and desperate attempt to force a u-turn or another vote but, as we said …

that boat has sailed, that train has left the station and Elvis and Mrs MOP have left the building.

Screen Shot 2016-11-14 at 18.19.41.png

The Borough of Waverley is a very different place in 2016/17 to what it was in 2009. Eight years have passed and even Waverley Borough Council has had to come to terms with the fact that, sadly, the Borough isn’t an island, nor is it immune to what is going on in the rest of the country. The government – indeed all political parties – recognise the urgent need for more house building and they’re determined to get on and do it everywhere – even in little old Dunsfold!

We like to be fair- Read Groucho’s letter here – but it comes with a Health Warning!16-11-10-fallacies-about-dunsfold-status


  1. oooh Tsk Tsk WW Pot calling Kettle etc……………..a teensie weensie biaised me thinks!!

    I have seen no mention on this site of the Mott Macdonald Stage 4 Report (commissioned by WBC) which states in Para 5.1 BACKGROUND – (And I have to type it as I cannot Paste it in.) ” Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere and Cranleigh are considered to be the most sustainable settlements within Waverley (in that order) as they provide the greatest number and range of community services and facilities to meet the needs of the local community….” and then it goes on to highlight the LACK of facilities at Dunsfold Park in table 5.1

    It then follows on in Table 7.1 Assessment of Transport Sustainability to show that and I quote
    ” Based on the above analysis, Farnham is considered to be the most suitable location overall for provision of new homes given its current transport options and potential to address local car trips by transferring them to other modes, followed by Cranleigh and then Dunsfold. It follows that Scenario 1 of the development scenarios that were subject to public consultation by WBC is considered the most sustainable, given the following numbers of new homes in each scenario – Sorry can’t post the Table 7.2 but I think we all know which scenario 1 was, and it wasn’t voted for by people living her in the East of the Borough!

    I seem to remember that this report was NOT posted on the Planning application site for DP – Can’t remember where I found it – somewhere buried in the WBC papers concerning the LOCAL PLAN and not the DP site Hmmmmmmmmmmm smack of something smelly to me… If you commission a report and the findings are not to your liking – You bury it???

  2. ..and the smell goes on. A Farnham resident with an investment in DAL could not be more biased if they tried.

  3. Very biased of course. But, you are so wrong. The basis of this post came from numerous comments from Cranleigh people, not Farnham residents. They are becoming increasingly concerned that if Dunsfold Park does not go ahead, every green field that surrounds them, and all those fields around the other towns and villages un Waverley will soon be wearing concrete boots! And… the people who occupying the homes – wellington boots!

    We here at the Waverley Web are sticking to our belief that Brownfield sites, wherever they are located, should be developed first. WW

  4. WW – I agree with Brownfield Sites – But PLEASE Dunsfold for young families??
    A281 – Rubbish – Overloaded.
    Limited Buses, no schools , No medical… Please….. Smell the coffee – Farnham has it all – What would a Young family have in Alfold?? – A petrol Station (with an M&S food – YAHAY) a post office, ONE PUB and a lovely restaurant… a great Sports field and tennis Courts – Don’t Make out we have Loads of facilities – Farnham has access to trains, Buses, Schools..and major Road Networks and Medical facilities.

    I agree with a lot you say – on this one I cannot – You are wrong to promote this site – and you know it – I left Clapham at 4pm this afternoon – Home at 5.45pm – By car – Dread to think how long that would have been on the train then the car home….This Is NOT SUSTAINABLE – and will get worse and has – as someone that commutes by CAR – I had to look after two clients today in Wimbledon & Clapham – If I had done that by train – I wouldn’t be home by now! – Sorry to be negative – But I am so fed up of Farnham people and Councillors telling us what we need to do to make up WBC’s lack of housing –
    It is simply not good enough to dump it on Dunsfold Park – It lacks imagination and shows no thought for the Borough as a Whole – When will we learn? there is more to this? I am just so disappointed.
    As ever

  5. Yes – and it could prove heaven for numerous other young families and men like you who would like to walk to work and spend more quality time with your family. And.. yes a primary school is planned, DP already boasts a nursery school and an amazing school for Autistic young adults… but then the locals, many of whom are London-based commuters or the worried wealthy don’t give a damn about people like you Mr Haveron.

Leave a Reply

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