TIME TO SAY GOODBYE!
So said Rumpole (AKA Christopher Katkowski QC) when speaking of his client’s and their proposal to build 1800 homes at Dunsfold Aerodrome.
The Public Gallery at Waverley Borough Council was full to bursting on the last day of the Public Inquiry into the Dunsfold Park planning application.
The Stinch – speaking on behalf of his clients, PoW & the Parishes, made much of the fact that his clients represented 20,000 residents. As with much of his argument, in his closing submissions both he and his clients stretched the truth so far Incy Wincy, from his position – somewhat precariously balanced in the coving of
the chamber – was astonished that their noses didn’t grow like Pinocchio’s! Though of course, he did tell one very significant TRUTH AT LAST – that DUNSFOLD PARK IS PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED LAND – ERGO; IT IS A BROWNFIELD SITE!
Rumpole, with supreme dignity and just a hint of sarcasm, dispelled the myth put forward that everyone in Waverley was against the scheme when he spoke of ‘the silent majority.’ Those, who, unlike the worried-well-to-do (all 30 odd of them) packed into Waverley’s stalls had jobs to go to, and a crust to earn?
Lynch The Stinch!
The Stinch, spoke at length – boy, did he go on and on for TWO whole hours!!! Incy reckons he had a bet on with his Junior as to how many times he could mention the word ‘unsustainable’ in his closing arguments.
Both Rumpole and Waverley BC’s barrister, Wayne Beglan – succinctly argued much of The Stinch’s rhetoric was refutable. Rumpole even wondered aloud, “If the Rule 6 Parties have not been here as their case unravelled?” Now that was a bit below the belt – albeit entirely justified!
The ladies who lunch obviously turned down invitations to lunch instead cheered on the Stinch, from the sidelines. The stalls awash with florals, and gummy smiles, sage nods and gentle “Hear, hear’s” accompanied much of his performance and when, at last, he reached the end of his perorations, there was a resounding round of applause from the local ladies.
Everyone was in dire need of a strong, black, coffee by the time The Stinch wrapped up! – PoW’s clash & clout brigade shimmied over and attempted to cosy up to the Dunsfold Developer – by which, we mean, representatives of Trinity College Cambridge, who turned up for the finalé. It was two-faced smiles all round as, we assume, Messrs Britten & Lees (POW) tried to explain their case to one of the wealthiest institutions in the country, “No, hard feelings, old boys. But could you just go and develop in some other borough; how about where you come from – Cambridge, isn’t it?”
Incy found it kind of odd that neither Charles William Orange Esq (AKA OJ) nor Nik Pidgeon (AKA Not-in-my-Columbier) was present. Two of the key architects of PoW & the Parishes’ case have not been seen in public since they were outed as Nimby Developers who, having spent years parking their concrete mixers in other peoples’ back yards now want to move in on their own patch and dig up the village greens of Awfold and Hascombe. KERCHING! Apparently, no pigeons flew into the Springbok Inquiry?
Strange that? Should we, instead, start digging up their patios – oops! Pardon us! We should say terraces as, clearly, Charles William Orange Esq wouldn’t have anything so pedestrian as a patio at his Grade II Listed Georgian des res!
Maybe, the police should be putting out an All Points Bulletin for Messrs Orange and Pidgeon just in case they’ve been lynched by a mob of angry Alfold residents …
Thankfully ‘YW’s Mr Beglan, made by far the better and, thankfully, shorter speech, which, – unsurprisingly – didn’t go down nearly so well with the noises off.
LESS IS MORE
The Inspector was forced to remonstrate with the worried-well-to-do at one point when they began to chortle derisively at one of Mr Beglan’s remarks. Clearly, they left their manners in reception. Suffice to say, Mr B’s closing submissions ran for less than an hour and were all the better for it – definitely, a case of less is more!
By the time Rumpole’s spoke for the Big D, the stalls had thinned out considerably. Perhaps the worried-well-to-do had taken umbrage at the Inspector’s ticking-off or maybe they just weren’t interested in listening to “the evidence and the facts,” which, Rumpole insisted, “must prevail over fantasy and fiction!”
He asked the Inspector; “To report to the Secretary of State based on the evidence you have heard. I say this because the Rule 6 Parties’ closing submissions, characteristically and literally, completely ignore the many concessions made in Cross Examination by their witnesses on a host of fundamental matters. It is as if the weeks between the Rule 6 Parties’ opening and closing submissions never happened. But they did! It is as if the Rule 6 Parties have not been here as their case unravelled. But, rest assured, our closing submissions will be based on what actually happened at this Inquiry rather than blithely ignoring it!
For the evidence and facts must prevail over fantasy and fiction!”
Later Rumpole said, “We note that the Rule 6 Parties have, today, written to the Secretary of State, requesting his intervention, in the Local Plan process. Doubtless, the Council will be writing to the SoS to resist this, as will we. This is not the place to debate the lack of merit of their request, as it does not fall to you [the Inspector] to deal with it. I will simply say that the Rule 6 Parties’ letter is characteristically misleading and myopic!
Tellingly, he went on to say,
“There is a deep hypocrisy about the Rule 6 Parties’ case on sustainability. A village on this site [Dunsfold Park] with the mix of uses and facilities proposed, coupled with bus services which are to be secured in perpetuity, would be considerably more sustainable than any of the villages in the parishes represented at this inquiry. In effect, the objectors are objecting to residents in the new village living markedly more sustainably than they do. I had originally written a good deal more about the rank hypocrisy of the Rule 6 Parties and then decided that politeness should prevail over emotion. However, having now listened to the Rule 6 Parties’ closing repeatedly describe proposals as ones involving ‘the dumping’ of people’ and ‘sink estates’, I consider it only right to add a few words. To describe the proposals in this way is shocking! But the very fact that the Rule 6 Parties speak in such terms shows what the planning system has to grapple with and face down here in Waverley.
WILL THEY STOP AT NOTHING?
In common with Mr Beglan, Rumpole’s closing arguments were short and succinct and completely at odds with The Stinch’s 60MPH delivery But, as Rumpole stressed. His client’s case was a simple, straightforward one!
It was not a complex case and there was a “clear and easy route to the conclusion that permission should be granted.” In short and in summary, Rumpole stated, “There is a real sense of momentum in favour of our proposals. Their time has come.”
But has it? Only time will tell and it will be a nail-biting few months for all concerned whilst they await the Secretary of State’s decision.
Meanwhile, in case you’re thinking it’s nearly all over, it isn’t!! The Stinch is already threatening further legal challenges and much resistance on the part of PoW and the Parishes should the Secretary of State dare to rule against his clients! No change there then!
In the meantime hold onto your hard hats – and watch those HGV’s and earthmovers roll across our countryside!
The Waverley Web predicts even more public money going down the pan!
So it’s…
Judging by the atmospheric pollution and standing traffic in Waverley’s towns they have been overdeveloped and unfettered by urban planning. Developing Dunsfold appears a chance to make amends.
How right you are! God help the East of the borough’s future traffic situation if Dunsfold Park does not go ahead. Because the other developer’s bunce won’t be filling the big fat hole in the county council’s highway infrastructure plans will they?
As ever WW – You make my Week – Having finally read the Final Statements this evening (Yup I Work)
DP’s were more sucinct – But that is because they have B***all to say that can be justified – I do not give a flyer about the fact it is a TINY amount of Ancient woodland – it is still just that – – Please do not take the stand of WBC that it can be re-planted! as some would think. – If we all take the stance that Ancient Woodland can be replaced we lose the Plot! Why not rebuild a Grade II listed Building – same as me thinks!
It is not just about Views from Hascombe – although Important and to say there will be b*** all difference with Chimneys and towers – is indefensible. as for 4 storey buildings – When you can justify that to me me – I will shut UP!
My issues are not just about a wonderful part of our history and its ancient woodland – but about what DP want to put in this remote part of the Borough and until ALL of them stop Banging on THAT is the Issue – GIVE US A TRAIN STATION so we don’t have to go cross country to get to the nearest trains – Update our Local Medical Facilities so we don’t have to wait for days (and days………………..) to see someone at the Local Medical facilities in Cranleigh and Loxwood – Great as they are – But over stretched.
I won’t bang on about schools as it would be something I know nothing about as I don’t have children – But I have seen enough to know there are issues there too and the extension of the existing Jigsaw school is great and the provision of an additional Primary school is also good news for the village – but it isn’t going to happen in time for Local People who live in Alfold now to benefit – but may be useful for their GRAND CHILDREN.
So many of the s106 improvements that will benefit this village will not come into fruition until 2022 and I dont want to be ageist – but that is a way off – You know my views on s106 and the value of the paper they are written on and the validity of them after 5 YEARS so I just don’t buy it.
If Anyone thinks that this Development is about making things wonderful for Alfold and the local Villages they are living in LA LA Land – It is about making money for DP and Trinity – They are not doing this to make our little corner of Surrey better they are doing it to make MONEY – That is what they do! and who knows what will happend if and when the actually Sell off the rights to the site.
I think deep down they would rather have simply rather made an Industrial development as they have done in CAMBS – But that wouldn’t fit in with WBC’s LP – would it?
It is what they normally do – So maybe this is just a tester – You have to question that option too?
As ever too late and must get the Horlicks on before I expire!!
Best as ever
Denise
PS lovely Letter from Councillor Mary F. Longest serving Councillor In Alfold – ask locals about that one – Something about the Crown Pub – But before my time so cannot comment.
So pleased to hear from you, we were thinking you may have literally gone underground with so much reporting of all things Dunsfold!
We take on board everything you say about the huge changes that will take place, should this scheme go ahead. However, we are quite sceptical about whether or not this scheme will be given Secretary of State approval – it may, in the end, be down to political clout! But if it doesn’t then we have heard it from the engine driver at Waverley Borough Council that the massive hole in its identified need for housing will result in thousands of homes being built in and around the East of the borough, which has little or no constraints! In which case, the developers’ contributions will count to almost nothing, and there will be no additional schools/GP surgeries etc.
As for the ancient woodland – we have looked at the stretch that, we presume will be removed, and have carried out a little research. Apparently there was a dreadful air accident, and the former owners BAe were instructed by the inquiry that followed to cut down the woodland on the approach to the runway adjacent to the road. It was believed this would reduce the possibility of future bird strikes. The accident was due to birds being sucked into the engines, which brought the plane down and led to serious loss of life. So, presumably however ancient, it shouldn’t actually be there.
Forgive us if we are wrong, but we will check this out with the owners.
WW believes if it was to be a huge industrial park, By-Pass Byham and the Bramley Babes would be out with their banners! They are also totally opposed to bringing back the trains!
All the best – don’t work too hard.
The trees were here before the temporary Runway…. But we have the industrial site here now and have to live with it. From what I could glean from the closing statement – The reason they want the access onto the A281 where they have put it – is because they own that bit of land and presumably the Layby on the other side of the A281 which means the road is wide enough to allow for the proposed roaundabout – the other option is from an area of the site they do not own… Surely Trinity can afford to buy it? I would imagine they simply hoped no one would notice as in their opinion it is only a small proportion of the Total Ancient Woodland in SURREY!
Sadly ancient woodland is disappearing, or being encroached upon all over the borough. Recent permission given in Dunsfold village; recent permission given to Berkeley Homes; recent permission at Little Meadow in Alfold Road, Cranleigh; but you only ever hear complaints about DUNSFOLD.
Just the same with the traffic! You would think that every HGV/car/bus/van/ that travels along the A281 comes from Dunsfold Park. Let’s get real. Much of the traffic is generated in Horsham/Shoreham and beyond. Access to Gatwick etc.
1,580 homes permitted in Cranleigh/Ewhurst!
So here reports poor Kathy Smyth. A so called “legal expert” or is it “planning expert” you’ve been referred to as both by your favorite paper The Farnham Herald.
Your bias and your rudeness against all others with a different view betrays you. Your directorship of a so called eco-facility at Springbok needs further examination.
But overall how dare you be a “Friend of the Earth”, everyone’s Earth not just yours (Godalming & Guildford branch) who have been in support of a massive sink estate at Dunsfold Aerodrome since the last planning application.
Oh and by the way and for your single minded, left wing brain, there are very many people in and around Cranleigh against the development who are left leaning but perhaps not so rotten and rude with it.
Your lack of self awareness is quite awe inspiring. You talk about bias and rudeness and then spew forth blatent bias and rudeness yourself. Where on earth has this description of a ‘sink estate’ sprung from? Presumably, that is the default description of what is proposed at Dunsfold Aerodrome from the likes of Charles Orange, Chairman of Hascombe Parish Council, who lost his cool at the Dunsfold Park Inquiry and revealed the nasty underbelly of those who simply object to people who have not had the same advantages as him and who are less fortunate than him daring to aspire to live within spitting distance of him. Such views are not representative of the vast majority of Waverley residents and they shame those who express them.
James- I Feel your anger too – Just wish there were more of us… But I kind of understand NOW that being a newie of only 3 years – Maybe I haven’t got to the stage of Apathy which I think many have… What do our ” little Voices” mean anymore to WBC??
They have decided what they want to do and will Plough on regardless of what we think here
B**** ALL as far as I can see
WW – I Understand your Feelings with your Sh1t in Farnham – But Please this is the biggest Planning App. in the borough – Keep posting for us little Mice here in the East
Denise
PS Can we please remember that DP may be the SINGLE Biggest Employer in the Borough But How many people are emplyed in Farnham/Godalming/Hindhead/Haselemere – More stats Please
The Waverley Web will continue providing you with as much information as we possibly can – promise!
Oh Dear – Wasn’t meant to be a bun-fight! But there is a lot of anger here – and perhaps sometimes I cross the mark and for that I apologise – I DO understand the need for housing as I have said on many occasions – It just has to be in the right place – and if DP had actually come up with a “Garden Village” That had all the amenities that young and old want – maybe I wouldn’t have been such an Ar*** – But they haven’t what they are proposing is a shed load of Bus – that probably wont go obeyond 5 years and some small improvements to the local road junctions. I know they are contributing to schools but that is to mitigatethe impact of the the New people that will live here… This is Not about improving the local villages – and it isn’t enough – They are doing the absolute minimum they have to to get 1800 homes in and with WBC;s 2600 it will be even less useful when it gets to 3400 – which it could do! we will be STUFFED
PLEASE stop thinking we are all NIMBYS here in the East we are not it is about doing this properly and not allowing it to be DEVELOPER DRIVEN
I’m sorry, Denise, but have you actually read Dunsfold Park’s planning application or are you simply relying on what others are telling you? It came out at the recent Public Inquiry that Dunsfold Park is spending in excess of £35 million on s106 contributions. Dunsfold Park is offering two schools, medical facilities, leisure facilities, parkland and local shops and that’s just in the new village itself. Outside of that it is going to improve local roads that will not only mitigate its own traffic but that of other developers who are not putting up a fraction of the dosh that DP is. For example, it came out at the Springbok Inquiry – which ran at the same time as the DP Inquiry – that Thakeham Homes is contributing less than £2 million in s106 monies and yet they are proposing to build 475 homes – circa a quarter of the number of homes that DP will. If Thakeham were to match DP’s s106 contributions they would be shelling out circa £9 million! This is what you and others should be getting your knickers in a twist about, Denise!
YES I Have and if I could Cut and Paste it here I would but it is a PDF and I cannot -so do not think I am an ignoramous – I know what I am reading – What I don’t Believe is how much of it is actually LEGAL & BINDING so do not throw this back at me – You Know I read the FACTS
Back home just before 8pm and have finally now put it on a spreadsheet and I am sorry and will check again in the morning But I cannot find £35million – so far going through the redacted s106 I am only finding £18.3 Million – Maybe it is to do with the fact that they have NOT committed to ALL of the funding on the s106????? I am sure you Webbers will know more than me – I will post again tomorrow – But I have now typed up the whole Doc and put into Excel – the figures (Dont EVER say I don’t read the stuff!) and will check again my figures & cut and paste the text tomorrow
As I said I do read it – Just couldn’t cut and paste on YOUR website – So took longer than expected! – I will see if I can post it elsewhere so that people DO know what is up there. (give me spell checker too)
It is worth the effort – as if nothing else – People that read your site will be informed and not blasted with 6 pages of Flim-Flam that is supposed to be an s106 – I have still to quite figure out the timescales but if NLP’s figures are to be believed (as posted on the Website the average build-out for a Brownfield site is Approx 89/year!! On NLP’s submission and if you go with Troy’s stats it will not be until 2022 Until 530 are built so if we go on that alot of this is not going to be paid for until between 2020 – 2022 this is what developers DO – They want to get the Top-end houses built and sold then they will concider the Affordable and the services and Local ameneties – Even the £5Million for Guildford Giratory doesn’t kick in until the first 450 dwellings.so again circa 2020 and that is only 1st of 4 payments over the next thousand plus homes……
This is NOT DP doing us a wonderful service in the area it is about MONEY – and until you realise this we will never agree on this one. I quote their comments on the new Road Infrastructure (Excuse typos)
9.1 Shalford Highway Works The shalford highway works are to be delivered in accordance with an approved scheme prior to the completion of
more than 500 dwellings
9.2 Highway Contributions Contributions towards highway/Transport mitigation as follows
& further Highway works Alfold Road/Wildwood Lane £50,000.00 Occ. Of 1st Dwelling
Guildford Transport Mitigation (5 Million in 4 Instalments) £1,250,000.00 Comp of 450 Dwelling
£1,250,000.00 Comp of 900 Dwelling
£1,250,000.00 Comp of 1350 Dwelling
£1,250,000.00 Comp of 1500 Dwelling
Rights of way Improvements Contribution £200,000.00 Comp 500 Dwelling
transport Mitigation Contribution £2,600,000.00 Comp 500 Dwelling
Bramley Traffic signal works – A provision in accordance with an approved scheme by occ of 500th Dwelling Occ. Of 500 dwelling NO MONEY DETAILED.
Sorry I know it looks awful but – that is your “cut & paste” options…
So Wildwood and Alfold Road get 20K – Apparently the Previous DP application’s s106 to provide paving on Dunsfold road at £20 – 30k odd wasn’t enough for DP and hasn’t happend despite being an s106 so what 20K on these 2 roads is going to do is anyones guess! fill in the holes provided by other developers in Cranleigh no doubt!
I understand REDACTED – means that it is a slightly Modified document – to ensure nobody sees anything they Shouldn’s so how valid it is is anyones guess – But it is up there on the DP Planning site so it must be true – NO??
Anyway I leave you with the basics for now and will fill you in tomorrow – But if you could sort out your website’s ability to provide decent Cut & Paste options it would make my life so much easier and make reading this stuff so much simpler!
As ever
Denise
DP have not paid past S106 contributions that they should have done, what makes you think they will contribute anything like they should do in the future? That £35m will be eroded down to naff all!
Still working on the figures – But I am still only £18.63 Million – Which based on 2600 new homes is £7,165.62 per home.
Now you know what I think about Thakeham Homes……….. But taking the figures from the Officers Report on the WBC Website the Heads of Terms agreement for the Springbok Development it adds up to £2,69 Million which if you divide by the 395 Homes comes to £6,830.73 per house. I didn’t include the Care Home as I doubt they will contribute to congestion too much and the 60 Independant living accomodation are 33 1 beds and 27 2 beds but if you add them it is is still just under £6k/home. That is not a huge difference concidering the scale of Dunsfold Park is it?????????
More to follow – I should be on the payroll!!
Oh and in case you missread me – I Do not rely on ANYONE ELSE – I Read the Planning information and Make my own decisions I am not a Patsy for ANYONE or any organisation.
Glad to hear it. But we will continue to get as much information – FACTUAL – information as we can.
We will be answering more of yours, and others’ questions in a post shortly.
We never want to be mean to anyone – particularly not you Denise. And as for bothering – thank God there are people like you around who actually read the documents and actually care about what is going on around them. You say you are a Newie and have only lived in the area for a few years – where are all the other the other villagers? Asleep? Go to the September meeting of your parish council and ask them where they have been, other than throwing money at opposing Dunsfold, whilst all hell is being let loose all around them on the countryside at Springbok! No Denise you keep on keeping on, we would have you cloned if we could over here in Farnham where all hell is breaking loose too!
Sorry was too busy typing up all my DP stuff… You will not be so keen on me after my post below.. If I believed DP – I may not be such a stroppy-A*** But I really don’t and until I see otherwise I will be against it!
Good Look forward to it – as I thought the earlier post – was a tiny bit mean – as WW know I I DO READ all the stuff on the planning sites and to make an assumption that I am Ill informed or I am writing for any other organisation – was a bit insulting – You should know me better by now – I don’t post unless I read and I do not work for anyone else but myself (oh and OH of course!! – But that is another story!!)
I will get the stats on the S106 over to you with dates and what is actually proposed – You may think it is the be-all-and-end-all !!!
Another Accident in Alfold near the post office today – Thankfully not Fatal – But when is anyone going to realise these roads are rubbish – I am still trying to get the accident damage to our place sorted ( no Injuries thank goodness) But whether you believe it or not all of us living here on the A281 (esp around the Crossways in Alfold) know it is a stupidly designed junction – Which has caused so many accidents and all they say is “Driver Error” – When you look at the huge amount of new cars that will be using it – It is frightening – and there are NO plans to make improvements to this junction despite the fact that Compasses Gate will still be an Exit route for Private Cars – Just not HGV’s who are some of the best drivers around here- Those heading for Horsham etc – Will use Compasses Gate rather than the new Proposed Exit as a short cut – So it should have been concidered in this proposal. I am not talking about Signage for speed reductions here….It just makes me fume…. Why do I bother??
Ten out of ten for all your efforts and we too are trawling through all the information. We are also seeking expert advice on all this as we, here at the WW are not planing experts, and, we have never pretended to be. However, we have an independent ‘expert’ who is nothing to do with any of the developers, who will assist us in getting all the facts to you.
Sorry about the cut and paste difficulties, we will try and sort that out too.
Why do you bother you ask? Because you care. Why do we here at the WW bother? Because we care and that is why this site was set up – to wake up the residents’ of Waverley.
Another Load of applications registered today by WBC – another 140 houses heading for Cranleigh’s green fields.
Hi WW
I have managed to get the s106 into Word from Excel with estimated delivery times based on the Troy report done for WBC in November 2016 so not a biased report by a developer or POW – It is just a V wide file so I am not convinced it will copy here – but I will try – I am happy to email it to you and see what your boffins can do with it!
Didn’t work – so emailed you
Great! We received the e-mail and it may take us a few days, but we are onto it – promise. WW