Why is the Sorry Advertiser siding with a campaign group to stop development at Dunsfold?



Why the hell is that Sorry newspaper which now only sells a handful of rags siding with the duplicitous Protect our little Corner … over Dunsfold Aerodrome?

In a recent publication, Tom Phillips quotes Bob Lees, PoW’s Chairman, at length before going on to state: ‘PoW has campaigned against the development of Dunsfold Park and other schemes they deem “unsustainable” throughout Waverley.’


Where the hell did Mr Phillips get that idea from? Nothing could be further from the truth.

As mentioned in an earlier post, the only two schemes PoW reference on their website are Dunsfold Aerodrome and Springbok – both in their backyard, between Alfold and Dunsfold. It has expressed absolutely no interest whatsoever in any of the widespread development that is taking place a mere hop, skip and a jump away in ‘Poor Old’ Cranleigh and as for Godalming, Haslemere and Farnham, they might as well be on another planet. 

If the Sorry Advertiser did even the most minor spot of investigative reporting it would know that PoW ostensibly set up to protect ‘Our Waverley’ in reality, is only interested in a very small corner of ‘Their Waverley’! It has a handful (300) followers and no locust whatsoever for its claim to represent ‘a very large and continually growing number of Waverley residents’. It is, quite simply, the bastard sprog of Stop Dunsfold Park New Town,  ruthlessly intent on ensuring nothing ever happens at Dunsfold Aerodrome. However, great thought went into the christening arrangements and ‘Protect our Waverley’ was carefully chosen to create an illusion of inclusion and caring. Ostensibly, It claims to be interested in protecting the entire Borough but scrape the surface and you discover a small group of rabid, determined individuals dedicated to a spot of social engineering that will ensure the ‘sink housing estate’ that one of its members and Chairman of Hascombe Parish Council, OJ, sneeringly referred to at the Public Inquiry into the scheme, is never built within 10 miles of their members’ double fronted multi-million properties with their in & out drives.

And before the usual suspects start bouncing up and down, telling us we’re Dunsfold Park stooges and funded by the Flying Scot and lots of other hysterical slurs, we would like to remind everyone that the Flying Scot no longer owns Dunsfold Aerodrome. It was sold to Trinity College Cambridge so the suggestion that wee Jimmy is going to ‘fill his boots’ at Dunsfold is a long way short of the mark. And – we hardly think TCC is going to fill our boots either!

All we care about, here at the Waverley Web, is that homes should be built in the best place possible in all of the circumstances and, here in Waverley, the best place is on the largest brownfield site in the borough. adjacent to an A-road, which is considerably more sustainable than all the development that’s going on in poor old Cranleigh.

As for the Farnham argument, it just won’t wash! Farnham has some of the most congested roads in the county. Come over here and breathe our AIR, but don’t come if you suffer from ASTHMA. 

Of course, some might argue that all PoW is doing – with the aid of the Sorry Ad – is exercising its democratic right to protest but, make no mistake, there is something sinister about an organisation that not only  perpetuates lies but is supported in those lies by a local paper that either can’t be bothered to check its facts. Or, perhaps, it’s the malign influence of Rupert Howell, a senior mover and shaker at Trinity Mirror Group who own the Sorry Advertiser. Regular readers will be aware that Mr Howell has been struggling – for years – to sell his country estate, which just happens to sit cheek by jowl with Dunsfold Aerodrome. Of course, we’re not suggesting he’s bitter and twisted but his wife was a leading light of the Stop Dunsfold New Town Brigade …

19 thoughts on “Why is the Sorry Advertiser siding with a campaign group to stop development at Dunsfold?”

  1. What a brilliant website feeding democracy through transparency and frustrating the political information filters determined to keep the electorate in the dark.

  2. WW. Give over with all the faux “all we care about here is…”. Nobody believes you and your outrage. It is so driven by a PR consultant’s agenda that it has become predictable to the point that when there is any news there is an immediate offensive repost according to your master’s
    brief. Go spin somewhere else.

  3. It is not obligatory to read the Waverley Web. We do not advertise this site, neither do we promote it in any way, shape or form. It is quite obvious that we hit a raw nerve with you on anything remotely connected with Dunsfold Park. You may desist from logging onto the Waverley Web at any time of your choosing. We could, but we will not. remove you from receiving our posts, neither will we prevent you from having your say.

    1. But you have censored me in the past, and more generally, your double standards on this blog are contemptible.

      1. The Waverley Web has only ever censored one comment. That comment was abusive, defamatory and was untrue. We are unaware of censoring any of your comments, however, we will look back on our records. As we have said before. You do not have to comment on or read our posts. It is entirely your prerogative. If you would be happier for us to remove you, then we shall be more than happy to oblige.

  4. The actual article the WW is referring to was more recent. However, in a nutshell, Clive from India.
    The residents of the borough of Waverley were consulted on an application to build, 1800 on the Dunsfold Airfield. The majority voted in favour of using s formerly developed site. Known as a brownfield site.
    The site was included in the Waverley BC Local Plan for 2,600 homes and an application was approved in 2017 by Planners. for the first phase of 1,800 homes. This was “called in” by two local MP’s Anne Milton and `Jeremy Hunt, and the Secretary of State approved the scheme in March 2018. A local protest group then sought a Judicial Review against said Local Plan, and then another JR against the Dunsfold decision earlier this month. A High Court judge will now determine whether this and another organisation, have leave to appeal.
    And so it goes on… Watch this space Clive from India. Wonder why the country is short of housing?

  5. WW – What has got your goat today??? It is HAPPY FRIDAY!!!

    I am hugely disapointed that you bring up the ridiculous Consultation that was sent out to Waverley Residents giving them basically 4 options – 3 of which included Development at DP and bearing in mind that the Bulk of the population live in Farnham, Godalming, Hindhead/Haselemere It is hardly surprising they voted to have as much developement here at DP in the East and not in Their Back Yards (Black… Kettle etc..) And if you have to bang on about the A road (A281) Be honest about it – it is a SINGLE CARRIAGE A-road and CANNOT be compared to the A31/ A3 etc.. So please get real… If there is so much as a cyclist on the road it can result in queues of over a mile as cars cannot overtake on a large proportion of the road.

    I understand your concerns about Farnham and believe it or not – Many here do feel and support Farnham residents as well as those in the other large settlements. But you have to accept that if we do NOT speak up against this – then the East with the least Infrastructure (Trains, Hospitals, schools, Sewage) we will be swamped. As you reported only the other day – there are noises about 6000 Homes at DP… So just take a minute to understand how we feel here and do not tar all residents here with the same brush – if any brush.

    We are concerned about the impact here and unless more is done to improve that Pathetic Infrastructure then WBC and SC need to be held to account. Ms Potts has asked for another 100K to pay for legal Costs – Well guess what? – they should have got more of their facts right and listened to decent Councillors like Jerry Hyman before they plunged into their Easy Option for the Local Plan!

    The fact that people don’t all FOLLOW POW does not mean we do not support them, just can’t be bothered to Follow – I just look at it when I want to!

    So you may not be in the pay of Trinity College – But you are Farnham-centric…and you simply do NOT understand the issues we have here – It is not enough to post the Odd thing about “Poor Cranleigh” Which is going to be in a complete mess by the time all the developements go through..Who ever your Cranleigh/Alfold Contacts are – they don’t seem to quite have a handle on the issues here. We have just lost our wonderful Wyevale Garden Centre – Making at least 6 Locals redundant – For Farnham that may not seem like a lot – But for a Village of our size it is conciderable and they were all well loved in the village for the service they gave us all.

    I just want you to get this into context, we have so little here and DP is NOT going to provide us with the panacea you seem to think they will – You have seen the plans and what they are offering (with the exception of the Buses) is Bugger all
    As ever in disappointment

  6. Let’s agree to differ. We wish you all a happy Friday. As for the Wyevale Garden Centre. You will no doubt have noticed our post, during which we commented about the loss of local businesses, the loss of local employment etc. But you know what – there was not an oink from Pepperpig, or anyone else, other than you for that matter Denise. Because WBC is supporting every single planning application for lettuce nurseries, garden centres, shops, factories, garages in Tilford, Alfold and anywhere else for that matter – because nobody is considering that employment is as important as housing – otherwise everyone will be travelling to Guildford/Horsham/London. And… allowing us all to pump ever more exhaust fumes into the atmosphere, as we all travel further afield to buy our garden centre products.

    1. Baloney. Fumes? What about 4000 commuters travelling from Dunsfold to their jobs … not in Dunsfold? 82% of residents apparently. Driving 8 milles to a station or the trunk road. Or all of them cramming onto DPs hoppa minibus every 12 minutes for a 40 minute journey. That is an environmental scandal.

  7. WW – You say you care about all of Waverely Prove and Publish the DP s106 agreement or let me send you what I have from the WBC website.. then we will all know what is actually being promised with 1800 homes – We have NO IDEA of what we will get with WBC’s 2600 homes as for any more than that who knows…………Probably NADA… So please let us try and get the facts out here and stop these obfuscations – they are not worthy of you or anyone else that just wants to know the FACTS

  8. Judging from all the comments above, if you came down from the Planet Zonk, you might believe there is only one development proposed in the borough of Waverley, county of Surrey, in the country or on the Planet – other that at Dunsfold!
    Is there anyone awake down there to the fact that two sites have been included in Part 2 of the Local Plan immediately adjacent to DP to extend the largest concentration of gipsies in the country. Of course, sites are also included over here in Farnham.

    1. Ah! But there are some who don’t want jobs, homes, people or traffic, a school for the autistic, or a school for villagers in and around DUNSFOLD. Same people who, but will happily support it here in Farnham – or in Godalming, Milford, Guildford, Haslemere, or Woking, Wrecclesham, or anywhere for that matter other than – at a brownfield site in DUNSFOLD! Get it!
      Oh! and many of the moaners will probably work there when all those lovely jobs arise!
      As for us here at the Waverley Web, we have all had a discussion. A Waitrose would go down well – even a Waitrose at Home – to join the M & S – in Alfold. Perhaps a few other major stores that Waverley Council, together with their partner Surrey County Council – who are investing over £50million over here in retail – could match in the East of the borough?

  9. Oh my, this is entertaining, a full and frank exchange of views. What a shame this is the only forum in the Borough that this can take place.

  10. Yes, it is a disgrace. But we are pleased that the Waverley Web is filling the gap. However, we are always on the alert – to MIND THE GAP.

Leave a Reply

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