Roll up, roll up?

You make me want to shout! 

Pick up your banner at the Borough Hall  on Wednesday and join The Protect Our Waverley group fighting to save  the borough’s brownfield land and help sacrifice the countryside? “Build anywhere, anywhere but not near us!

PoW  want to make their feelings known and ensure  every Waverley Borough Councillor who walks into the Council’s offices on Wednesday  will have to walk the walk past an intimidating crush of protesters waving banners and placards.

Never mind that this group of mainly well-heeled Tories  will almost certainly have a median age in the mid-eighties, it’s bums on seats in the public gallery that count!

 Almost to a man and woman, they encapsulate those with comfortable homes of their own.  The needs of those who simply cannot afford them don’t even enter their heads.  But they would all do well to remember the words of the Planning Inspector who heard the Dunsfold Park Inquiry way back who said : ‘Everyone attending needs to be able to do so without fear of intimidation or harassment.’

It’s not quite rent-a-rabble but there’s a lot at stake here: the haves -v- the have nots.

This is a once in a generation opportunity for Waverley Councillors to ensure the provision of affordable homes for many hundreds of people who otherwise wouldn’t have a hope in hell  of  buying or renting  in what is, undeniably, one of the most affluent, attractive and desirable areas of the country. And we’re not just talking about low paid workers,  but key workers – firemen, policemen, nurses and teachers.

Across the mass media PoW  has made its feelings clear: If Waverley’s  Councillors heed POW then  they  are making  a catastrophic error! They have a choice between the Goodies (PoW) and the Baddies ( who want to develop Dunsfold Park) and if they choose the latter, ARMAGEDDON could ensue!

Waverley Web is no fan of developers but there is something profoundly dispiriting – disturbing even – about the behaviour of PoW who, when faced with a decision that flies in the face of everything they have campaigned for –  they react not just with outraged disbelief but conduct a smash-and-grab raid on reports that they cherry-pick to aid their dystopian programme of misinformation.

“Of course the country needs more housing … just not near us! We’re too remote! Too rural! It’s not sustainable! We are, we must be the exception to the rule!”

What’s so special about Alfold, Bramley, Chiddingfold, Compton, Dunsfold, Hambledon and Hascombe that they should be exceptions?

Why should  the wily-well-to-do and well -housed  of Waverley  – think it’s acceptable  to deny  those who aren’t even the chance of a property.

“It’s lack of infrastructure!” they wail. “Where are all these houses – that we don’t want or need – going to pump their effluent? Where are all the children living in those houses going to school? What about all that traffic? All those HGVs on the A281 come from and go to Dunsfold. …”


If they bothered to read the planning application instead of  their own hysterical briefings, they’d know that Dunsfold Park is the ONLY development in the South East  of the Borough that plans to build:

  •  Its own sewage treatment works, a primary school (in addition to already being home to two award-winning schools – Little Harriers Nursery and Jigsaw School for Autistic children –  and with  a legal  agreement to be  entered into with Waverley BC and Surrey CC, spend muchos-muchos millions of pounds improving the existing road network.

No other developer is shelling out the multi-millions that Dunsfold Park will if granted consent. Not Berkeley Homes with their approval for 425 homes on Knowle Lane; not A2 Dominion (formerly Knowle Park Initiative) with their application for 265 homes also on Knowle Lane; not Threadneedle Investments with their application of 120 homes at Hewitts Industrial Estate; not Thakeham Homes with their application for 400 homes in Alfold; not Cala Homes with their consent for 125 homes on Amlets Lane in Cranleigh; not Crest Nicholson with their 149 homes on Horsham Road in Cranleigh … we could go on … but regular readers will get the picture!

Not one of those developers is being asked or is offering to divvy-up anything approaching the huge sums that Waverley BC and Surrey CC (and anyone else who can remotely justify getting their hand in the cookie jar) are demanding of Dunsfold Park, despite the fact that, collectively, if approved all these other developments will come within spitting distance of matching the number of homes proposed by Dunsfold Park. 

Which begs the question: Why?

Dunsfold Park it would seem  is the Cash Cow for Waverley and all the other developers are riding on their coat-tails, offering the bare minimum to improve infrastructure or in any way compensate the communities in which they will have such a detrimental impact.

So why isn’t PoW all-over these other developers in the same way they are all-over Dunsfold Park?

PoW think it’s acceptable to sneer at people who support development at Dunsfold Park because they believe they are intellectually and morally superior to them.

Yes, that’s right, all those Captains of Industry, bankers and estate agents, QCs, solicitors and surveyors, the project managers and town planners, all those people who make their bread and butter – not to mention a healthy dollop of jam and in many cases cream too – out of the housing market – funding them, selling them and building them – think they’re morally superior to the supporters of development on Waverley’s largest brownfield site. Many of them are involved in the housing and development market themselves but they don’t build in their own back yard preferring to build in someone else’s  … doesn’t matter where! 

Screen Shot 2016-12-13 at 16.25.47.pngSo,   they’re not morally superior they’re simply hypocrites, utterly lacking in empathy for those who, unlike themselves, can’t afford that first step on the housing ladder –  and would prefer pulling up the ladder behind them.

Sadly, there is none so blind as those who can’t see. For PoW is making the same mistakes that handed Brexit to the outers and the keys of The White House to The Donald. They are speaking up for themselves – a group of narrow-minded, primarily privileged home-owning individuals – and if they think their increasingly hysterical distortions of the truth are going to see it off !

We must all hope they are gravely mistaken. Because if they succeed it won’t just be a few of Waverley’s green and pleasant fields that are concreted over but most of them. Because behind every hedgerow there is a wanna-be-developer waiting to pounce.

Our message to those who will have to brave POW’s wrath on Wednesday  is:

Sometimes as leaders and members of a community we have to think about more than just ourselves. So please, please, PLEASE, ignore PoW and vote to save our green fields by building homes for all us young people  on brownfield first!

16 thoughts on “Roll up, roll up?”

  1. WW – Really??? I am a Book Keeper/PA hardly a “Captain of Industry” (I wish!!!) and many others against this are just ordinary people that cannot see how this development is in the right place. You can talk about Brownfield Sites until the cows come home, but until we get a Train station that can get people to work and to local amenities like Hospital/Doctor/Dentist/Schools – You are Wrong.
    This year I went to the Doctors in Loxwood – She was rather more concerned about me than I was ( I Think) but she told me to get myself to hospital in CHICHESTER!! I was on my own (OH away in Scotland) I had to go home, sort out someone to look after my dog and Drive to Chichester Hospital (1 hour 20mins) then eventually get home 5 hours later BY CAR – She seemed to think a heart attack was imminent – But I was still supposed to get MYSELF to hospital – Not everyone always has someone to hand to help out – I hasten to add that it was simply a muscle strain but her diagnosis nearly gave me a coronary!! – I understand people’s fear of how they would get their children or elderly parents to Hospital in a real emergency and my journey was on a Thursday Pre-Lunchtime – so not rush hour.

    It is really hard here – Where almost everything needs a Car – or a damn fine neighbour with one!

    In a previous WW blog – I think you rather misquoted me so I will attempt to put the record straight

    If I could cut and Paste I would give you more info…. But I cannot and life is too short…. I am Quoting from SCC’s Updated document posted on the DP Website In December 2016- Not Your Waverley’s Document – (which I hasten to add I have read ALL of it – I am just rather more interested in what others have to say than the Spiel WBC give out)

    So I quote…..not my Words!!

    “The unknowns are the populations who will be occupying the housing at Dunsfold. It is, highly likely that many of the houses will he occupied by overspill from the out London Metropolitan Area seeking less expensive housing whilst trying to continue working lives in current locations elsewhere in the South East….”

    “The suite of initiatives proposed by the developer, with the exception of the undertaking at this stage of bus service in perpetuity is nothing new, radical, or forward thinking. This is of no fault of the developer, as there is little that can reasonably be introduced in this location, which is cost effective, as well as environmentally sustainable. No evidence has been produced that the proposed bus services will deliver these two fundamental credentials, and the present undertaking to fund them for perpetuity, is likely to be the subject of a serious challenge if over time, as suspected, little use is made of them….”

    “It is however recognised that the Developer has “explored” new territories in terms of striving to provide a method of delivering a bus network for the life of the development. It is for that reason that examples of this successfully operating elsewhere cannot be found…”

    SCC agree that the mitigation proposals on the A281 will be better than if NOTHING IS done – Well it would be wouldn’t it?? But if you put 1800 – 2400 new homes you had better do SOMETHING!

    Finally in the Conclusion Paragraph. (I cannot type it all..)

    “… As explained above, there does still remain the objection on the Locational challenge of the site, and the fact that the creation of a new settlement in the relatively remote part of the Borough will lead to greater distances being travelled, and less sustainable travel choices than would be the case if the quantum of housing were located either within, or adjacent to the existing urban areas which are creating the demand for the additional 1800 homes. ”

    So WW I may not always agree with SCC (rarely) but even they are struggling with this.. It is not mealy mouthed Bankers and Wankers that don’t want this development. It is the people that live here – that know the limitations of this area…. For goodness sake we all went mad when we got a new “Little M&S Food” at the Petrol station…. And do not quote about what DP are going to give us by way of Retail/Pubs and Takeaways, as none of that is going to happen for years as with the revised Phased Development – if it all kicks off in 2017 here is what we get……..
    Pre-School 175sqm – 2019
    Retail Convenience 750sqm – 2019
    Office/Gen Industrial 6000sqm 2019 (Hmmmmmm)
    Medical Ctr /Community Ctr 1600sqm , 250sqm more retail, Financial 250sqm, Food & Bev. 900 sqm – 2020
    And it goes on – But bear in mind this is OUTLINE and not guaranteed.

    So please do not say we are being parochial – we just know our limitations and what we have here and it is not a lot and maybe that is why some people moved here for a quieter way of life and if you think that is Nimbyism then fine – But do not tar us all with the same brush

    All for now – I am sure I will be back after the meeting tomorrow – weeping and wailing about a foregone conclusion!

  2. PS Forgot to mention I am not over 80 though I feel I it sometimes…. and I hate the Isley Brothers song – much prefer ” Fight the Power” … Would paste it in – BUT CAN’T……..

  3. What a load of hogwash.
    Last ditch attempt to rally a fraction more support from the few that support McAls big plans.

  4. More than a few Mr Maxwell because some are looking at the bigger picture rather than concentrating on their own backyard – which, would you believe, includes some of our WW’s backyards. Why? Because houses have to go somewhere and WW would prefer they went onto a site that, one way or another will be developed! There are children living in Cranleigh being forced out to Ewhurst to go to school. Who else – in the big picture – is going to provide £3m for a school in Canleigh and an Infants School for Alfold and Dunsfold?
    Hogwash – no- someone has to think about the needs of young families for the future!

  5. Please forgive my ignorance and I am sure you can put me right. But I could only find the 175sqm in 2019 and another 175sqm in 2022 for the PRE SCHOOL. (Note Government Min Size for a Primary school is Net 240sqm and Gross 350sqm) The only mention I could find for the Primary school was 1FE in 2019 and 1 FE in 2022 but no mention of floor space – I must have missed something – but knowing how carefully you guys look at it perhaps you could help – after all as you say this would be of benefit (Hopefully) to children in Dunsfold and Alfold as well as those living on Site.

    1. Having trawled through 266 pages our eyes are out on stalks here at the WW. However, from what we can determine is this:
      The application is in outline only. A more detailed application will follow if approved.
      The Primary School has to be constructed to Local Authority Standards and must be approved by Surrey County Council.
      This site is being made “Sustainable” by the amount of Infrastructure which must be provided – and will cost mucho, mucho many millions of pounds. WW

  6. Since the closure of both Alfold and Dunsfold village schools rising five year old children have been taking bus/car/coach journeys to schools in Cranleigh/Ewhurst and even to Ockley. Having a new purpose built school at Dunsfold Park sounds to us like manna from heaven. OH! and P.S. aren’t they just about to build more houses in Loxwood – where there is no room at the school there or at schools in Billingshurst? WW

    1. So are you suggesting we bus them all into this new (unlikely to be built school) down some of the worst roads this side of the borough? Might be better to reopen previously closed schools to serve communities more locally which would be possible if supported by proportionate development across the area.

      1. Yes! because the new school will be less than a quarter of a mile away. Ask Surrey County Council if it is prepared to open Alfold and Dunsfold village schools?
        They cannot afford the schools they have – and over the next five years the Government will be cutting school fundingby £3bn. Yes, you are absolutely right all would be possible if supported by proportionate development and supportive developers – ask how much Crest Nicholson/KPI/Barratt Homes/Cala Homes/Berkeley Homes/Thakeham Homes/ and Uncle Tom Cobley homes intend to contribute towards education?

  7. Nothing has changed since 2009 and the developer plans for the infrastructure are just too miniscule to make a difference. Dunsfold Park will be a huge white elephant for the future. If it is given the go ahead, and we really hope not, then we very much doubt it will get developed as planned and major changes will be made to reduce their costs as the project goes on and will not deliver on even the flimsy benefits they have outlined.

  8. I understand it is Outline…But why is everything else detailed in sqm and not the school. If you add up the total space for the whole lot it does come to the total of 88,266sqm with no allocation for the Primary school – I have little to NO Faith in S106 agreements – we have seen them challenged and falling by the wayside or simply ignored. But going back to your comments above there is nothing even about the Primary school until 2019 so where do the first batch of residents send their kids? It has been mentioned (not by me) that there is very little scope for Internalisation within the site so I don’t think anyone is justified in saying it will be a self sustaining development and there sure isn’t going to be anywhere to walk outside of the site to do the weekly shop!

  9. As mentioned by another – why not simply re-open the schools that closed in Alfold and Dunsfold and then make it a condition that DP provides a school bus twice daily for the children at DP, at least then the first residents would have somewhere for their kids as will the new residents at Sweeters and the other potential developments on Dunsfold Road such as Brockhurst? The Vintners one wouldn’t need it obviously as they will all be Old Foggies in their retirement homes!!

    1. Why? you may well ask. The schools were all flogged off aided and abetted by one very stupid Alfold parish councillor! Oh! and why doesn’t everyone allow all the other developments proposed/granted in Alfold and Dunsfold – Sweeters Copse 120 – granted- Nugent Close, Dunsfold 55 – granted – Brookhurst – ? 465 Springbok- at appeal etc, etc, and let Dunsfold Pick (Trinity College Cambridge) provide the schools (remember £3m for a secondary school in Cranleigh`) and let DP pick up the bill? All is fairness and light in the borough of Waverley?

  10. Hi WW
    I am NOT a Lovely Lady – I am a Damn angry one… I told you it was forgone and it was… Why oh Why am I not surprised?
    8 against:
    Byham – Bramley
    Deanus – Alfold
    Gray – Dunsfold
    Hyman – Farnham – But he is Lovely and looks into the detail
    Mulliner – Haslemere – He is bright and again looks into the minutiae
    Seaborne – Bramley
    Stennett – Cranleigh
    Williams – Godalming

    10 For:
    Cockburn – Farnham
    Else – Elstead & Thursley
    Foryszewski – Cranleigh (never talking to her again!)
    Hesse – Hindhead
    Inchbald – Hindhead
    Edwards – Haslemere
    Martin – Godalming
    Bolton – Godalming
    Hodge – Farnham
    Fraser – Farnha

    Please don’t tell me this wasn’t a biased Vote – and one that wasn’t predominantly “Not in my bally back yard” – So many MICE IN THE ROOM….. and some damn rude comments I was quite frankly shocked – So few gave honest and well thought out comments as for the one about how few emails she had received about this development – Well why would we? we have our own councillors – and Cranleigh have enough on their plate with all the development.
    I know – I shouldn’t be surprised
    WW – When this all comes back to haunt us and I am sure it will – with broken promises and WBC saying (as is their wont I didn’t agree this – Did I ???) at least I can say I tried……..
    End of No drinking on Weekday – Large Glass NOW

Leave a Reply

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