Looks like Godalming’s green belt is about to get the chop! Could Waverley’s Local Plan be next in line?

As ‘Your Waverley’ prepares to go out to public consultation on another 1,300 homes {it decides tomorrow evening} it has revealed that parts of the borough’s cherished green belt could face the axe along with masses of countryside!

Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan looks certain to  bite the dust with another 450 added to its allocation of  2,330 and Cranleigh’s up from 1,520 to 1,700. Godalming’s allocation goes up from 1,240  to 1,520  requiring the town to sacrifice part of its cherished green belt. Haslemere’s allocation goes up from 830 to 990 homes.

Here at the Waverley Web we cannot help wondering how the other towns and villages who have beavered  away for months, even years, on their Neighbourhood Plans will receive these latest figures. We have heard from one, who thinks theirs might as well go into the nearest trash can!  Will Farnham’s NP go back for another referendum?

elephant.jpg

But what about the real elephant in the room? If the Dunsfold Park scheme  with consent for 1,800 homes – ON A BROWNFIELD SITE – is kicked out by the Secretary of State, on the insistence of the Protect Our Little Corner of Waverley Group( POW) – aided and abetted by MP’s Anne Milton and Jeremy Hunt and… the Local Plan containing 2,600 at DP is also kicked out what then? We predict mayhem!

Screen Shot 2017-08-21 at 10.43.26.png

Screen Shot 2017-08-20 at 23.01.51.pngInspector Jonathan Bore wants Waverley to take 50% of Woking’s unmet need and part of London’s unmet need. This takes the housing need from 9,861 to 11,210 (2013 – 2032). It is expected that the consultation, which is based on the main modifications to the plan, will start on September 4 and last for six weeks. Other issues cannot be raised.

Why is Farnham getting 450 more, all on the outskirts such as Seale,  Badshot Lea and Runfold, when DP could take them easily (although apparently not in the Plan period say Waverley eh??). 
And why are they not being directed to villages that have train stations such as Milford and Witley.

We bet Farnham Town Clerk  Iain Lynch’s comments have ruffled a few Waverley feathers (see his comment in the Farnham Herald piece below).  And why, we wonder, did he say it rather than  an elected councillor? Presumably because they are too scared  to come out and say it themselves! Load of wimps!
Now we know what happens to Town Clerks that overstep their masters, don’t we Godalming Town Council?
Be careful you don’t get Lynched Mr Lynch! 20861982_10155604793891613_5340146660394091120_o.jpg

In the meantime the borough continues to be bombarded with planning applications!

5 thoughts on “Looks like Godalming’s green belt is about to get the chop! Could Waverley’s Local Plan be next in line?

  1. Simple solution for Cranleigh’s requirement – increase the DP allocation to 3600 homes, as requested in the 2014 Consultation and show the POW merchants what others are having to put up with. Incidently, I thought that we were already taking most of London’s unmet nead – thank you, Boris for demolishing your affordable homes to build speculative and unoccupied luxury apartments for your super-rich friends.

    Like

  2. Simple solution for Cranleigh’s requirement – increase the DP allocation to 3600 homes, as requested in the 2014 Consultation and show the POW merchants what others are having to put up with. Incidently, I thought that we were already taking most of London’s unmet need – thank you, Boris for demolishing your affordable homes to build speculative and unoccupied luxury apartments for your super-rich friends.

    Like

  3. WW – I am afraid I am rather sad about the thoroughly Farnham-Centric rhetoric – Your facts and those of Mr Lynch’s comments are equally galling. Please get your facts right and don’t just lift them from WBC’s website.
    Fact: How is it that the Planning Areas are so biased? ( I am not convinced your Website will take this picture so I ask that in order to be FAIR you attach it )– as I am convinced many in Waverley have no idea how the Borough is made up. (I know this is wishful thinking and if you were a fair website you would allow me to post this picture)
    NOTE NO PICTURE POSTED ………….Please post the WBC Ward picture here or no-one will have a clue what I am talking about …………………………………….Maybe that will suit you???
    Link here

    I simply Question this
    Frensham – is South as far as WBC Planning goes – Looks West to me
    Churt IS put in the West for WBC Planning and yet is South of Frensham
    Dockenfield is South of Frensham and North of Churt it is in WBCs Southern Planning– as above looks West to me
    Tilford – Is quite definitely West yet in Southern Planning area
    Hindhead/Haslemere – According to WBC it is Southand it is sort of is but still in the WEST of the borough
    Elstead,Thursley and Peper Harow are quite definitely West and yet is in Central Planning.

    As for Godalming – well they ARE Central but so West-Centric and Home to WBC – in fact I read somewhere it is the “Capital” of Waverley! I seem to remember reading a letter on the WBC website from Godalming suggesting that the full 3400 homes should be built on Dunsfold just like Mr L!
    I Understand that in order (presumably) to make it seem fairer wards were designated for some reason – But it doesn’t stop the fact that the Council is Skewed in Favour of the WEST.

    This is what WBC figures show as the Household percentages in the Borough and based on that this is what WBC fair allocation of housing would be and what they are proposing
    WBC Allocation
    LP Opt 3 (revised allocation)
    WEST 34.66% 2795
    SOUTH 16.73% 1030
    CENTRAL 26.38% 2160
    EAST 22.24% 2275
    TOTAL 100% 8260
    So I include: Haselmere (inc. Hindhead), Frensham, Tilford, Dockenfield, Elstead, Thursley and Peper Harow in the WEST
    If life was FAIR
    WEST 54.38% 4492
    CENTRAL 23.38% 1931
    EAST 22.24% 1837
    TOTAL 100% 8260

    So really WW – the West is offering far less Housing than is proportionate to the rest of the Borough and the EAST is taking far too much – These are FACTS when you add in DP’s 2600 to the East’s figures we are then taking on 59% of the Borough’s housing need.

    So please stop going On & on & On and on and on and on….. about Poor Farnham – and about how DP is a big Brownfield-Cash-Cow that means you in the West don’t have to put up with as much housing, But it is OK to put it all in Cranleigh and Alfold/Dunsfold – Well it isn’t!

    Start a campaign to say Waverley will NOT take on 50% of Woking’s deficit and do something USEFUL

    I give up – is there anything else to say -I will never change your Farnham-views – No wonder people in the East have given up trying to fight this and the only ones that do are POW. The figures Don’t lie but WBC does and I am afraid to say so does this site and you do not make it easy for luddites like me to post the facts due to the fact the only info I can post is TEXT so no tables or charts or pictures from credited Websites.. it makes putting up factual evidence impossible.

    I promise I will shut up now – as I have really lost the will to write anymore
    Denise

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s