What is it with the Sorry Advertiser and its vendetta against Dunsfold Aerodrome?

Firstly we apologise for the rotten picture quality – but the Sorry Advertiser has – rotten picture quality! 

Secondly, if Cranleigh with approximately 15,000 inhabitants and several thousand to come is a village,  how come Dunsfold with 1,800 homes producing possibly three or four thousand residents – is a town?

Thirdly: We don’t know the Flying Scotsman, and we doubt he reads our blog because he stubbornly refuses to respond to any of our requests for comments!! But, if we were he, we would stop buying the paper, just like most of the rest of Surrey. 

Last, but not least! It couldn’t have anything to do with one of Trinity Mirrors senior directors living on the perimeter of the aerodrome, could it?

Screen Shot 2018-04-04 at 17.38.06.png

P.S. Now legal challenges To Waverley’s Local Plan have been set in motion – perhaps it just won’t happen and the onward march of developers across the borough’s green fields will continue unabated. Perhaps Annie Milton will have her fervent wish granted? That the largest brownfield site in Waverley becomes the largest Industrial Estate in the borough?

Oh! and just as a little local joke. She has told her followers, who have told us. She wants to see Guildford’s brownfield sites built upon – particularly Wisley Airfield!!

8 thoughts on “What is it with the Sorry Advertiser and its vendetta against Dunsfold Aerodrome?”

  1. Oh WW…..
    You make references to Cranleigh which may well have 15,000 Residents (the only actual figures we have are the 2011 Census which says 11,492 – but obviously out of date) but DP isn’t strictly IN Cranleigh the land is in Alfold and Dunsfold, which as you will be aware probably have about 2000 Residents between them. Waverley’s allocation of 2600 New Homes at DP equates to approximately 5720 New Residents along with all the other New developements IN CRANLEIGH, Alfold, Dunsfold, Ewhurst etc…so in the Local Plan if you include DP We in the East of the borough, the least well served for any Infrastructure, are expected to take 42% of the total allocation of the Local Plan. You wonder why people are upset?

    I don’t wish large development on Wisley (2068 new homes) anymore than I do Dunsfold, but what the site will have is direct access to the A3 from the Ockham Interchange. About 9 miles to the M25. It is within 5 miles of 9 (Yes NINE!) train stations – It has 70 acres of disused concrete runways – at least Dunsfold is still a working Airfield with business on-site. It can hardly be compared.

    DP is 8.5 miles to the A3 via the A281 and 18 Miles to the M25 and I won’t bang on how far it is by car to each of the overstretched Train stations…

    You and the rest of Farnham have always been in favour of as much developement at Dunsfold as possible to protect Your Greenbelt.. You don’t care that we don’t have ANY and thus are open to this sort of development. As I have said Greenbelt is NOT GREENFIELDS – be more honest about it. We don’t have any because we are RURAL VILLAGES and Greenbelt is for URBAN TOWNS – with larger populations and therefore a Greater say in any planning decisions made in the Borough.

    I have no doubt DP will go ahead and we have to live with that..We can only hope that the forthcoming MASTER PLAN shows something with a little more concideration for the environment and the wishes of the local villages and communities.

  2. We think you may have missed our point. When is a village, a village and when is a town a town?

    There is nothing like a bit of scaremongering to get the juices flowing, is there? As for Greenbelt – -v- the countryside – ask all those who formerly walked in and lived near green fields that are now covered in bricks and concrete how they feel about building on previously developed land. The very same land that the local MP admits she wants to become a huge industrial estate!

  3. WW if you took the time to read what I said – you wouldn’t ask.. I agree DP New Settlement shouldn’t be called a “town” – what I was trying to explain was the anger that is felt here in the East – and perhaps the retoric is sometimes stretched. But do please remember that of the 4 main Settlements (sorry 2011 Census again – but I guess all relative)
    Farnham 39,488
    Godalming 21,804
    Haslemere 16,826
    Cranleigh 11,492
    Which makes Cranleigh the smallest of the 4 settlements and yet it is supposed to take the highest proportion of the new Housing??????? Whether it is called a Village or a Town is down to semantics
    Town – a town has a population of 1,000 to 20,000.
    Settlement hierarchy in the UK planning system
    “The position of a settlement in the hierarchy is intended to inform decisions about new developments such as housing. Rather than define the hierarchy by population, an alternative way to construct the hierarchy is based on the services that are available within each settlement. Settlements are described as “level 1”, “level 2”, etc. rather than using terms such as village or town.[7] The Government planning statement (PPS3) does not specifically mention “settlement hierarchies”, but talks about the availability of services to small rural settlements. The term is used a number of times in the guidance for preparing evidence for planning decisions.”
    BLAH BLAH BLAH…………………..

    I am not saying anything should be built on Green Fields – there is just a difference between Green Belt and Green Fields. There is plenty of Green Belt along Motorways because the land happens to be in between Urban areas. I don’t have an issue with building on PDL – Just put the Bally infrastructure in FIRST… You have to admit that there is a distinct lack of it here.

    Put up a list of ALL Brownfield Sites in the Borough and those that have Planning Proposed, or Not, then ,maybe we can make more informed decisions. Size isn’t everything. DP may be large in terms of acres – But when so much of it is GREEN (in colour) it isn’t all BROWN

    We are never going to agree on this – so I suppose any further conversation is pointless. I understand your retoric – and if I had a platform to shout about this as you do I would – Instead I only have you and I am afraid you are biased. So it will just have to come back to local elections and I sincerely hope that we will have people worthy of our votes next year.

  4. Sorry if we misunderstood. We agree with every word you say about the dire lack of infrastructure over there in the East. However, the only developer that has come anywhere near providing the sort of money required to build one new school at Dunsfold, contribute towards two new schools in Cranleigh, provide a medical practice is Dunsfold Aerodrome/Rutland Group.
    We are told shedloads of homes are being built in Cranleigh, many already occupied, but the pressure on the roads will not be relieved until the highway authority receives the huge sum DA contributes. If you look at the Inspector/S of States report he says the A281 does not have anywhere near the same pressures as other roads in Waverley, including the A31.
    You are absolutely right – WBC should have published its brownfield site register. We cannot find it, but then now the planning portal has been wrecked neither can we or anybody else can find anything!
    Perhaps that is the intention? What do you think?
    We have to disagree with your point about bias! But we cannot wait for the elections!
    From the outset, the WW has believed like the CPREl that brownfield sites should be built on first. Wherever they are – in Guildford, Woking or Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerchwyrndrobwyllllantysilioogogogoch in Wales!

    1. If you will excuse my “French” I think the inspector was talking a load of B*****cks – It is simply ridiculous to compare the A31 with the A281 – of course it has FAR more traffic and therefore more pressure it is a Major arterial route. As for DP’s contribution to highways – if you look at the s106 agreement – you will see when the Contributions will be forthcoming and it isn’t any time soon…

  5. There you are then – thanks to one of our followers who has provided us with the Waverley Borough Council Brownfield Sites Reister you can now see the sites for yourselves. You know what folks! Before long we shall be outselling the Sorry Advertiser and we are based here in Farnham! Not bad for a bunch of amateurs?

Leave a Reply

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