The die is cast – and ‘Your Waverley’ goes out to public consultation on the Local Plan – including higher housing numbers to satisfy Woking’s unmet need.

By clicking on the link below you can hear for yourselves Part – and only part of the Executive Meeting held tonight at Waverley Towers!

You will also hear only part of Farnham Residents Councillor Gerry Hyman’s plea to  the Council’s Executive to set aside party politics and postpone a decision, until the Overview & Scrutiny Committee that he chairs, has had an opportunity ‘for the sake of our borough’  to consider the modifications to the plan before it goes out to  public consideration. Needless to say his request was refused – and the council will stick to a strict timetable laid down by Inspector Jonathan Bore. 

Leader Julia Potts – said she appreciated the huge concern felt by everyone in the borough of Waverley about the increased housing numbers, and in particular the concerns of Farnham residents of which she was one. But she stressed it was imperative that Waverley Council had a robust plan in place. ‘We do not want appeal led development in the borough and the only way we can avoid this is with a robust Local Plan.’

She stressed there was ‘no whip, and no party-line – just that everyone wanted to see a sound local plan.

She said it was difficult for everyone in Waverley to understand why the borough was required to meet Woking’s un-met housing need and the council officers had fought hard against it at the Local Plan hearing. ‘But we were told in no uncertain terms by the Inspector we had to take the increase in numbers!’

Councillor Kevin Deanus said he had no wish to see Alfold’s allocation go up by 25%, but bearing in mind the huge increase for Farnham – could not object. Godalming Councillor Andrew Bolton said he had asked Godalming residents who supported removal of the green belt in Aarons Hill to provide affordable housing and which site had a pedestrian link to Godalming Station.

It was agreed there would be further consultation with Farnham Town Council whether its proposed increase in  housing numbers and suitable sites would be contained in Part 1 or Part 11 of the Local Plan

elephantThe only reference to the elephant in the room was from Councillor Andy McLeod who said he believed the extra homes now required should be included in the masterplan for Dunsfold Park.

Click here to watch part of the meeting. Which could be removed at any time – and for which we here at the Waverley Web apologise!

https://youtu.be/sMBcQJ3rDqk

12 thoughts on “The die is cast – and ‘Your Waverley’ goes out to public consultation on the Local Plan – including higher housing numbers to satisfy Woking’s unmet need.

  1. What a load of Rubbish as ever – Let us try and get this into Perspective

    THE PROPOSED INCREASES to the PROPOSED LOCAL PLAN – Not yet approved.
    Farnham’s increase is 19.31% – Increase of 450 New homes
    Haslemere’s Increase 19.28% – Increase of 160 New Homes
    Frensham & Tilford 33.3% – Increase of 15 Each
    Cranleigh 11.84% – Increase of 180 New Homes – Because the Inspector thought too much had been given to Cranleigh already and was disproportionate
    Bramley 28.57% Increase of 20 New homes
    Wonersh 50% Increase of 10 New Homes
    Chiddingfold 30% Increase of 30 New Homes
    Ewhurst 53.85% Increase of 35 new Homes
    Alfold & Dunsfold 25% Each Increase of 25 and 20 new Homes
    Godalming 22.58% Increase of 280 New Homes
    Witley 26.32% – Increase of 100 New Homes – remember Witley you supported DP and then got cold feet and said you were anxious about how many commuters would be coming to YOUR TRAIN STATION down the country lanes… Perhaps you should have thought about that before you said YES? Knowing there was No Train station in the East of the Borough where these New homes would be built – Perhaps you thought they would all be cycling to Guildford/London or rowing down the Wey & Arun Canal –
    Elstead 6.67% – Increase of 10 New Homes

    Farnham is still only taking 34% of the total New homes and concidering it is 34% of the size of Waverley hardly a big deal?
    Cranelight however is still taking nearly 21% of the new homes but is only 10% of the size of Waverley
    Godalming is taking 18.4% and yet is only 12% of the size of Waverley. But this figure may include Milford.
    Witley – Is taking 5.81% and yet accounts for 6.7% of Waverley – There is a train station there Why not more??

    So please stop talking about the Dunsfold Elephant in the Room – There is no Elephant – but there are a lot of Towns and Villages that thought they had got away with putting as much housing as they could at Dunsfold park and Cranleigh – Just maybe some of this will come and bite them on the nethers… I would and will be having a long think and chat to my Local WB Councillors and I hope all the others do as well before this Local Plan goes ahead Not that I think it will make much of a difference – Because it seems pretty clear to me Dunsfold Park with the best will in the world is not going to be able to deliver the WBC Housing need to 2032 and the 3400 new Homes option is pie in the Sky for this plan – so get real – they will coming back to grab more of your land – as there is B*all left here in the East. Even the Inspector recognised that – Hence the lower Proportion of increase in Cranleigh proposed by him.
    Good luck all I am emigrating to Albania!!!

    Like

    • Sadly – the elephant in the room is DP – because if Dunsfold is kicked out, as we all know what you hope – then it won’t be 400 more for Farnham or 200 for Cranleigh – and all the other statistics you mention…but 2,600 that will be scattered willy nilly across every available piece of countryside in the borough! Albania sounds good to us.

      Like

  2. I was of course Joking – I wouldn’t and couldn’t leave Alfold – I love it here! and WBC gives me hours of unpaid entertainment – Why would I want to leave?

    Seriousy though – I am rather in love with this little village and have been since I moved here and I feel passionately about it hence the rants. You are still missing my point however – I don’t say I am against DP – I am against the fact that the infrastructure is inadequate for the volume of Housing and I am against wholeheartedly with the Ganging up that I have seen against this smaller and less vocal part of the borough – It smacks of Bullying both at Council Level and on Social Media.

    I throw Stats at you because I don’t think many people read all the jargon and just see a big Brown field site and cannot see any reason why all the houses shouldn’t be put on it – they don’t seem to have quite got a handle on it… I refer back to Witley and their submission (sorry Witley) But where on earth did they think these new home owners were going to travel to work?? Did they honestly believe that they would all be working at DP??? REALLY? Best case scenario is still reckoned at 12% Internalisation… So the rest will HAVE to use the other travel options (apart from the A281) and that includes the local Train stations in Witley/Milford, Godalming, Shalford and Guildford.
    Because they didn’t read the info given to them by all of the the TA’s and that is the problem when only the Headlines are read.
    Cranleigh will initially take the biggest Hit – As it is closest to DP – But there is only so much people will take especially those moving in from London, Cranleigh with the best will in the world is a lovely Village/Town (call it what you want) But it has limited facilities for young families and people that like to SHOP! .

    I have read volumes from the larger Towns saying Yes put it at DP as DP will then provide the infrastructure needed in the area in one place Spreading it over the Borough means we all have to bear the pain…….Without looking at what is being offered to the East. IT IS NOT ENOUGH to mitigate this and I do not care what SCC say or the Water Frame Directive or any of the other things that the Planning Officers have thrown into the pot.

    I still think the whole DP developement was WBC’s Lazy way of getting the Housing figures they thought they needed – then they discovered they needed more and heyho Farnham and everyone else has to take more…

    They employed Troy to look at the delivery of the DP developement and Troy said NO! it was unlikely it would meet the 5 year plan – so they have had to re-think the whole plan – But because the Inspector hasn’t written DP off they carry on with everything still riding on DP – I personally think they are misguided and Troy possibly sweetened the Bitter Pill a tad.. (and they were quite ruthless – But were paid by WBC to do this – So only a personal comment)

    So your comments about Greenbelt going – Is quite likely but not just Greenbelt (You know my thoughts on that) but Green Fields and rural villages that are a huge part of why this part of the country is so sought after – if the Local Plan had been a balanced plan based upon what was achievable in the larger Towns/villages in a proportionate way with allocations in the smaller villages being equally proportionate – It may have worked – But there is a saying about all eggs in one basket and DP is a very Large Basket and we may all rue the day that the West bullied this one through.

    Like

  3. Of course, if Waverley Council had listened to Dunsfold Park eight long years ago – and actually planned development in the borough (not the fault of the present administration we hasten to add) then much of the angst could have been avoided. It could have resisted so many unsuitable developments on narrow country lanes which are now under construction. Many of the homes would have been built at Dunsfold by now and traffic improvements made. You never mention Springbok 480 homes on your doorstep – WHY? Are you happy for the village of Alfold to more than double in size?

    Like

  4. I don’t mention Springbok/Thakeham on your site as it has been refused by WBC twice! In the unlikely event that the Inspector thinks otherwise – he will have to deal with the whole Spatial Strategy and Alfold’s allocation of 125 New homes which would make a mockery of the whole process of the Local Plan. I like to think I rant when I have something to rant against, at the moment Springbok/Thakeham do not appear to be a serious threat to the village, that is not to say they won’t rear their ugly heads again and as you said try to piggy-back off Dunsfold, then no doubt you will hear me ranting once again about THEM – at the moment I feel Dunsfold is the greater threat to the village.

    Like

    • From what we hear from your neighbours – there is much for Alfold people to worry about! We hear that Thakeham put up a very strong case for developing in the countryside – and made no secret of the fact that it was considering itself the perfect neighbour for Dunsfold Park. We hear Councillor Kevin Deanus did Alfold proud, but nobody else from the parish council turned up and the Inspector could be forgiven for thinking Alfold people didn’t give a damn!
      Oh dear – we can feel another rant coming on!

      Like

  5. No Rant – Just not relevant at the moment as I said earlier – for the Inspector for the Thakeham Development to overturn the WBC refusal – He will potentially have to overturn Inspector Jonathan Bore’s recommendations for the Local Plan – then we can Call them BOTH IN – SIMPLES

    Like

  6. Pingback: Is silence golden Councillor Povey? | Waverley Web

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