The bulldozers could soon be on their way to ‘Alford’. And… don’t forget its G Day to-day for the by-election!

When is someone, somewhere, sometime, anytime, going to get the name of that poor village right?Screen Shot 2017-11-06 at 13.47.18.pngScreen Shot 2017-11-06 at 13.45.16.png

If at first you don’t succeed – just try, try, and try again…?

http://waverweb.waverley.gov.uk/live/wbc/pwl.nsf/(RefNoLU)/WA20171947?

Having been thwarted in its attempt in July to build 39 dwelling on land at Brockhurst Farm, Alfold Crossway, Cove Construction has banged in another application  – this time for 25!

This is a revision of revision of WA/2017/0104 which was recommended by Waverley’s Officer’s for approval, after all they want to ensure they have a 5 year land supply!  BUT it was refused by members of the Joint Planning Committee. Let’s see if the developer together with officers are more successful this time? No bets on that certainty now that Thakeham Homes’  Springbok scheme has hit the buffers! 

Read that decision by clicking on the link below:

Care Ashore and Thakeham Homes’ boat sunk by a Government Inspector!

Here are the council’s reasons for refusing the earlier scheme.

  1. 2.9  Despite the positive recommendation, the application was refused by Waverley Borough Council’s planning committee on the 14th July 2017. The reasons for refusal contained on the decision notice are as follows:
    •   The proposed development, by reason of the extent of development and number and density of dwellings would harm the intrinsic character and beauty of the Countryside, contrary to Policy C2 of the Waverly Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraph 17 of the NPPF 2012
    •   The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure the provision of affordable housing within the meaning of the NPPF, appropriate to meet Waverley Borough Council’s housing need. The proposal would therefore fail to create a sustainable, inclusive and mixed community contrary to the requirements of paragraph 50 of the NPPF 2012.
    •   The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure contributions towards education, environmental enhancements, play space provision, recycling and the ongoing maintenance and management of SuDS and public open spaces. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies D13, D14 and M2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and paragraphs 7 and 17 of the NPPF 2012.
    •   The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to secure a programme of highway improvement works to mitigate the impact of traffic generated by the development. As such, the proposal would fail to limit the significant impacts of the development on the surrounding highway network. The application therefore fails to meet the transport requirements of the Nation Planning Policy Framework 2012, Polices M2 and M14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and Policy ST1 of the Pre-Submission Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites 2016.
  2. 2.10  We do not consider that reason for refusal 1 represents an objection in principle. Instead the reason for refusal relates to the extent of development the and number and density of dwellings and the alleged harm that this would cause to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.

 Want to bet they get it this time around? 

There are another shedload of objections from residents mainly based on highway and flooding grounds, overdevelopment and the loss of countryside. The dangerous Crossways junction,  known locally as Kamikaze Corner, is cited as another reason for refusing the scheme as residents living nearby  claim they regularly entertain cars  as they impale themselves onto their front garden hedges!

But of course there will be No Objection from the highway authority, because there never is!

Residents also reckon that there are enough homes already approved to more than satisfy Waverley’s  housing requirements for Alfold – and when  built, will have met need within five years let alone the life of the Local Plan which runs until  2032!

 

 

 

 

8 thoughts on “The bulldozers could soon be on their way to ‘Alford’. And… don’t forget its G Day to-day for the by-election!

  1. Hi WW
    I am sure you have read the various objections – But just to add to them as posted on 26 October…………
    1. Dunsfold Road is STILL a narrow B road, which currently has no pavements. I understand the applicant is proposing some paving from the New Access to the development to the un-adopted road by Brockhurst Cottages/Dolphin Cottage. As well as pedestrian access to the site via the un-adopted road alongside Brockhurst Cottages This would undoubtedly make this part of the road safer for pedestrians wishing to walk to The Crossways, but there is no mention of pavements in the other direction towards Dunsfold Park and the Pub and for those wishing to walk to potential employment at the New Approved Dunsfold Park Development. That section of the road is actually worse as there is little, to no grass to walk on and you have to walk on the road with HGV’s thundering past you. I know that if and when the Dunsfold Development access route to the A281 is completed HGV’s will no longer be using Compasses Gate, but Cars will and there will be a lot more of them.
    I understood that Dunsfold Park had committed to providing a Pavement on Dunsfold Road as part of their application WA/2015/0695 – S106 Redacted Dec 8 2015 (See Below). I have been informed that the Contribution was lodged with SCC but to date no work on the proposed paving has been carried out. If this application is approved, in the interests of Pedestrian safety – surely this would have to be something that should be addressed PRIOR to development work in view of the amount of Construction traffic that would be using Dunsfold Road.

    2. The residents of Brockhurst Cottages have hardstanding in two sections of the Dunsfold Road, one is access for a car and Bin Storage and the other is predominantly used for parking as pointed out in the Road Safety Audit – see Transport Assessment Part 2 Appendix B – Problem no. 3.1 “Vehicles parked East of access may be in the Visibility Splay…… Resulting in Collisions” –

    The Designers response was “At detailed design stage we would consider providing more Off street Parking by extending the Parking Bay…” Unless I have missed something I can not see any provision for this in the revised Application. Surely this is an Access Issue and should not be left to the Detailed Design Stage.

    3. The PAI report shows that of the 19 Accidents at the Crossways most were due to driver error… It is one of the most confusing junctions I have ever known and I constantly see cars going into it the wrong way it is not that people are ignorant – It is just a dreadful Junction especially at night. 19 Accidents in 5 years is bad – but if you increase the volume of traffic – then it will get worse. The contributions to Loxwood road and the Crossways from the Sweeters Copse Development ( WA/2015/2261) are minimal. I do not think they address the issues of this very messy junction. Having had a car plough into our Frontage this year destroying a significant amount of our 12ft Laurel Hedging and external signage – it is clearly an issue when exiting from Dunsfold Road.

    4. The TRICS reports are still not in keeping with the Location they are all EDGE OF TOWN and therefore should not be considered as appropriate to this application in a rural area.

    5. If this application is for ACCESS then I think this needs to be addressed before anything else is considered.

    6. Other Issues – Not related to Access, are that the site is located within the Countryside and outside of the settlement, contrary to Policy C2. It is not Sustainable in that although the site is ADJACENT to the rural settlement it is a significant distance from any local amenities that would normally be provided by higher order urban settlements and is poorly located in terms of Public Transport. A bus stop close to the Access is still only for a bus that has a very limited timetable for access to any of the larger settlements and cannot be considered a suitable means of transport for Employment or Education and will therefore result in the reliance of private cars.

    7. The Visual Impact locations take NO consideration of the Impact of Local residents on Dunsfold Road and the local vicinity with the exception of the location on Dunsfold Road by the existing entrance gate, which I believe they think is Moderate… It is not, and this particular road is used by many Cycling clubs and rallies for it’s beautiful scenery. The view from Wildwood Golf Course seem slightly out of touch! There are no Visuals I could find from the gardens of Brockhurst Cottages, Byways, Bluebells, East Views Cottages opposite the site. I am sure they could provide real pictures of the impact this will have on their amenities.

    8. The reference to THREE Pubs in the village is still annoying as it shows that much of the work that has been carried out is desk-based and relying on Google maps (2013) We have 1 Pub, A Restaurant with a Bar – The Crown Pub was converted to housing many years ago! The MOT centre is no longer with us and thus not a potential employment site as it now accommodates 4 new homes. There is no reference to the two New Builds next to Byways or that Brockhurst Farm is now 2 New renovated Properties. Nor does it include WA/2017/0499 for Four 1 bed Flats at Dolphin Cottage The Garden Centre has an outstanding Planning application WA/2016/0114 for 10 dwellings (WA/2017/0198 for 27 Dwellings was Refused) – Highly likely one will get through and thus reducing Employment in Alfold. It shows a lack of attention yet again and should have been amended with this new Application.

    9. In the LAA this site was considered with a capacity of 15 Units, 25 although an Improvement on the previous applications still exceeds this and would result in other LAA sites in the village being turned down.

    10. The Loss of Grade 3b agricultural land for the main of the developed land is only a small percentage of the total site the rest being Grade 2 which the developers state will be left as both POS and open space, but by building to the side of this higher grade land it must impact on both the quality of the land and its ability to function as useful agricultural land. Once again I question that if this application is approved what is to stop the next application to in-fill the Grade 2 land. The fact that little agriculture has taken place on the land is irrelevant – It could be the owners preference after Planning for 24 Houses on the site was refused in 1992 and has been left dormant in the hope that planning would eventually be granted on the land.
    We know there is a requirement for new and affordable housing in Alfold (Including Alfold Crossways) But 25 New homes that do not fit in with the Linear landscape of this rural village are totally out of keeping with what should be considered growth of the village. One only has to look at the density of the proposed development compared to the surrounding properties.

    Like

    • Every single point you make is very relevant, but sadly, since when has attention to detail been an issue for either prospective developers, the highway authority, or for that matter Waverley Planners. No doubt your excellent borough councillor Kevin Deanus will make all these points, but despite his gargantuan efforts will most likely be ignored. Why? Because WBC does not have an adopted Local Plan, or, it would appear a five-year land supply?
      As for all the inaccuracies about local employment, pubs etc, if it is any consolation when Cala Hoes applied for a shedload of housing at Amlets Park, they told the planners that the workforce would arrive at the Cranleigh Railway Station!
      Most developers know little, or nothing about the villages that they intend to damage, neither do they actually care. They are in the business of building little boxes all over our green fields, and then leaving… on the first train perhaps?

      P.S When The Crossways junction was redesigned some years ago, even Surrey County Council’s own highway engineers, now long since gone, described it as one of the worst they had even seen! They also predicted a spate of accidents, and history has shown they were absolutely right!

      Like

      • Gosh Interesting – I didn’t know that! Got any more details on it? or even just when the it was done?? I really hate it – It is a nightmare to cross if you just want to walk to The Barn or M&S and it is a PIG at night especially when you have to go all the way around it and come back on yourself as I do – People unfortunately presume because you have come off the A281 and you have turned right you must be going down Dunsfold road and not back onto the A281 – Many a car has pulled out narrowly missing me!

        Like

  2. What ever happened to the Localism Act?

    “There are, however, some significant flaws in the planning system that this Government inherited. Planning did not give members of the public enough influence over decisions that make a big difference to their lives. Too often, power was exercised by people who were not directly affected by the decisions they were taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them. The result was a confrontational and adversarial system where many applications end up being fought over.
    The Localism Act contains provisions to make the planning system clearer, more democratic, and more effective.”

    Like

  3. Local democracy! What on earth is that? We might as well bin the ballot box, there is a By-Election taking place to-day in Godalming by the way, but we have to live in hope, even if we die in despair!

    Like

  4. From information we received some time back, there was a great deal of concern about Alfold’s traffic problems, in particular The Alfold Crossways, after it was re-designed. Not that anyone in the village ever believed it had been designed as such.
    The engineers responsible, will all undoubtedly have left by now – they don’t stay long in local authorities, at least not long enough to be held accountable for their mistakes.

    There were articles written about the junction some time back, due to the number of accidents, mainly due to the confusion of motorists believing they could turn into the first turning right on the A281- which of course is NO ENTRY, difficult to see at night, particularly during bad weather.

    No doubt the whole Crossways junction will be redesigned IF Dunsfold aerodrome goes ahead, we doubt that any of the other developers – including Surrey County Council itself that intends to build at the old piggeries in Rosemary Lane will contribute, it certainly won’t be signing up on a 106 Agreement to put its hand its pocket! It will wait for the Flying Scotsman to cough up the dosh.

    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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s