Please note: There are two posts today – don’t miss the Good News posted earlier today!
Council Julias Potts and her Conservative cohorts are reeling in the knowledge that the council now faces a Judicial Review!
However, the Campaign for the Protection of Some Parts of Rural England (CPRE) and the Protect Our Little Corner of Waverley (POW) are jubilant that a High Court Judge has backed their call for a Judicial Review into – one aspect of their challenges All the others were kicked into touch!
All the Rumpoles will need wheelbarrows when they appear at the High Court in front of yet another judge in the Autumn! To carry away more of the ratepayers’ money.
Perhaps The Secretary of State for Communities will ask his own Government Inspector to rock up and explain why he included 50% of Woking’s unmet need into both the Waverley and Guildford Local Plans? In fact, might have been an idea for him to be in the High Court yesterday to explain the rationale behind his decision – as it might have saved a shedload of OUR MONEY!
However, let’s not be churlish, this was a triumph for democracy in the David and Goliath fight wagered by POW! WOW! Led by nonother than former lawyer and Dunsfold Parish Council chairman Alan ‘Gone to Ground.’ This small group of LOCAL people who don’t give a damn that Godalming’s Green Belt is going under concrete and that it has now been renamed Godawfulming because it is set to become part of greater Guildford! Or that the playing fields of Charterhouse School could soon welcome in the earthmovers. What about the playing fields of Eton – or Priorsfield School next door? Or maybe, Farnham Special Protection Areas (SPA’s)? It could the send the Dartford Warbler up north!
As for the east of the borough, residents there are punch drunk awaiting the next green field, belt of trees, hedgerows, or wildlife habitat to disappear in a cloud of dust!
‘The Potty `one’ pictured below drowning in another fine mess that Government Inspector Jonathon Bore has dropped her into by ruling Waverley must take some of Woking’s unmet housing need. That town is now building highrise 20+ storey buildings and is fast becoming an outer London suburb!
However, (POW’s) begging bowl could be out again, because the judge was not entirely sure yesterday that its application for capped costs of £10,000 is legit because it hadn’t filled in the paperwork correctly. In other words, they can continue to run amok at your expense.
I am NOT Crowing but WBC should have had the BALLS to say NO to Woking’s unmet need – so I am afraid it serves them right. I totally get the need for the Local Plan and it is in place for now… But if they had had just a modicum of intelligence and imagination they wouldn’t have Dumped 2600 new homes on top of Cranleigh’s 1700 allocation here in the East with no trains, and limited road infrastructure. We can’t even get pavements on dangerous roads from Dunsfold Park despite DP Paying the s106 funds of (I believe) £150K to Surrey CC in 2015..
So I am afraid I am pleased with this result and I bet DP would be far happier going back to the 1800 they originally wanted… Maybe if it all gets trashed and DP re-apply they can be asked for CIL payments rather than s106 which as we all know have no teeth!
Here at the Waverley Web, we are often accused of being pro – Dunsfold for which we make no apology. We believe in brownfields first and then the countryside. However, we live in a democracy and the anti’s have every right to have their day/s/weeks… in court. If they win their David & Goliath type battle – then perhaps they will have a plan to build elsewhere in the borough presumably in someone else’s backyard or front yard, or garden?
Well said Denise.
Only a fool (or the developer) would believe a technical distinction between brownfield and greenfield could justify building 2000 houses in a rural field 8 miles from anywhere. When the resulting 3000 commuters hit the roads to get to work, school, shops 10 miles away then Milford and Godalming and Guildford will rue the day WBC thought it was a jolly good idea to say yes to Dunsfold. Fools.
I know PP
Do you know I had kind of got my head around 1800 at DP – Not happy .. but resigned to it when WBC upped it to 2600 – I was so furious – Who are they to say they can DUMP it all here? Made my blood boil and still does so I will support anyone and any organisation that is against it – Until the Government/WBC come up with a proper Infrastructure plan – Which we know they Won’t
Hi Denise
Waverley have been a walk over. Where Guildford said no to unsubstantiated unmet need WBC did nothing as they are too in bed with ( or in the pocket of ) Dunsfold Park. Waverley are blinded by the DP smoke and mirrors on what DP can afford on S.106 or CIL. WBC don’t enforce anything even when they do make agreements, so expect DP to get away with murder – whether it is truck quotas, contributions, affordable (ha!) homes quotas or pie on the sky bus services. Hell WBC even accepted DP’s silly sustainable transport lie that included a canal! WBC are either incompetent or corrupt – I don’t know which is the least scandalous.
PP – You know what gets my goat the most – is that we have known for at least 2 years that even the Government knew s106 agreements were on the way out .. if I could cut and paste… it is on their website… But NO WBC went ahead with this knowing (unless they are as stupid as I think they are) and let this and all the rest of the rubbish in Cranleigh go through… and now they will whinge about lack of CIL well shame on THEM – Why the hell couldn’t they defer until the LP1 went through? – Because they haven’t got the balls… and they were too scared they would go to Appeal..
The planners BULLIED them into submission – Planners including Mz Sims – who promised to chase SCC about the aforementioned pavement did NOTHING. And has no intention of doing anything that is raised at the Dunsfold Liaison Group – Because it is a waste of tax payers money – It is unaccountable – does not produce Minutes – Just notes every 6 months that tell you nothing
DP must be laughing all the way to the Bank as I am sure Trinity College are too…. Well done you – You found your Pasty! – It makes me so bally angry – what is the point when our Local Councillors cannot get anyone from WBC/SCC to respond to the most basic questions..?
Our councillors have no power they are fighting planners that tell them what to do due to Government policy – and most of them have no idea of the location or history of the local areas they are dumping housing on – even when they are given local knowledge – they do not care.
Well guess what? if they had just held off and said – until we have a Local plan we cannot justify this and pulled their fingers out and got on with this – we wouldn’t be in this mess.
But we are where we are….. There are times I just want to give up because despite being a Newbie – I have tried for the last 4 years – and made not an iota of difference – (apart from Pissing-off a few local councillors) No wonder those that have been fighting this for years have given up .
Indeed. The local plan vote at WBC was a 3 line whip to approve. Local democracy? Forget it. This was scare tactics to get the vote through at all costs as they knew the SoS was holding onto his DP decision until they approved the plan. It was a stitch up, and the councillors were ignorant of how they were played.
And now we see WBC in Court again ( how bad do you have to be to have so many JRs against a council?). How come WBC are not representing their borough residents? They are spending our money defending a developer with £1.4 bn at stake. So it is left to resident groups to stand up and scrutinise and police WBCs planning department. If we do get housing quotas revised it will be because of resident action where the Planners have been impotent. If DP is subsequently defeated it will be because of residents doing what the planners should have done. I suppose thats what comes of having promoted the office junior to head of planning.
Well you have said it all – we get what we Vote for – I just wish more people were engaged – They are Not – I know from Chums locally – they have lost the will because they have been doing this longer than I have – and I see their pitying looks – It’s like “she will calm down eventually – we all have”… It breaks my heart that people that do care – Have given up hope in this Council because they know they will not make a difference
Well guess what? just to really P*** them off – I have made a decision I will give it I more year of My time – and if after that I have failed then I may throw in the towel – But not yet- I am not willing to give up on this little corner of WB we deserve more – we may be a little village….. like Dunsfold – But we have the right to SHOUT about 2600 homes being thrust on us – so one last shout methinks – Well a few more – I have 1 year!! I still believe it Little Voices… I hope you will Support us
As Ever
Denise
Denise,
I understsnd what you say. It us not a fait au complis. There are a lot of angry residents out there. They are not vocal or prominent but they are thankful that groups like Cpre and POW are fighting on their behalf. You only have to look at the attendence of local meetings ( cranleigh society, parish meetings, dev. Exhibitions) to see people are concerned. This is not just Dunsfold. Ask around Elstead, Milford, Shalford, Bramley, Godalming and many will say enough is enough. That is why there are protest groups setting up ( better late than never I say – Witley and Milford were oblivious to the impact that DP will have on them when 4000 commuters try to pass through their village!). If POW win the unmet need case in Court it will benefit all of Waverley, and if that means DP is hit into the very long grass ( despite being brownfield) then everyone’s life will be better.
Hey Bob
The Woking unmet need impacting Waverley is about 83 extra homes a year (at 50%). With Guildford now being asked to take 25% by the same Inspector, (but given credit for releasing Green Belt already whereas Waverley had not) the reduction in housing need is about 1500 over the Plan period. But if you mange to persuade the Inspector to only allocate 25% like Guildford (which might be seem reasonable), then its an overall reduction of 750 total. Yes Total.
Now CPRE are going to say, lets take that out of Greenbelt areas (they can’t still argue against building on brownfield sites can they?!) – saving Godalming 500 overnight for example, and tweak the rest at settlement edges. In planning terms you wouldn’t knock out a Strategic Site such as Dunsfold for such small numbers.. would you?
Dear Denise,
re an earlier comment on the phasing out of S106 in a couple of years. If you can find the reference on the government website again I’d be very interested as I haven’t seen any indication that s106 are being phased out. Indeed the page on CIL on the government website I have found states “Therefore, the government considers there is still a legitimate role for development specific planning obligations to enable a local planning authority to be confident that the specific consequences of a particular development can be mitigated.” see
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy
The Government has been monitoring CIL quite closely since it was introduced and the latest report is now on the Government website. See “The Incidence, Value and Delivery of Planning Obligations and Community Infrastructure Levy in England in 2016-17”. This latest analysis was published in March 2018. I haven’t yet spotted a reference to phasing out of s106 in this report but it is long and I could have missed it.
You will see from this report that in 2016/17 S106 were still widely used and are regarded by many as preferable particularly in the case of large, strategic sites (such as Dunsfold). For larger sites they are still regarded as having some advantages over CIL because of delivery and timing of the infrastructure and because s106 can be ‘bespoke to context’. Indeed I think they will probably continue to be used possibly in conjunction with CIL once introduced on many other larger strategic sites in Waverley and elsewhere.
The hope was that CIL would simplify matters and reduce delay but according to the report the jury still seems to be out on that. Where CIL does come into its own is in relation to smaller sites which historically tended not to have a s106 so made no financial contribution at all. As the report states “The use of CIL without a planning agreement occurs most frequently (as a proportion of permissions) within the 1-9 unit category and then less frequently on larger developments as the proportion of planning agreement only permissions increases.” In Waverley where a large site is 15 or more it has meant that smaller sites making up a high proportion of development have generally escaped contributions.
However, in relation to larger strategic sites the position is very different. See for instance page 8 of the report.
“Our findings point to CIL proving most effective on small, uncomplicated sites in areas of high demand. Outside these high demand contexts there remains a strong residual preference for S106. A large part of this is related to the site-specific association between development and the planning obligation agreed to make it acceptable. When considered in isolation CIL breaks this connection. Furthermore, because it takes time for LPAs to accumulate sufficient CIL proceeds to fund infrastructure investment a corresponding impression that CIL payments are being accumulated over sustained periods rather than spent in a timely fashion can develop.
Where the scale of development is significant or the site was complex and/or occupied a strategically significant location, CIL was rarely adequate to mitigate site-specific issues, and was often accompanied by a tandem S106 agreement. There is widespread variation in the negotiation of planning obligations in CIL charging authorities, and in some cases it was suggested by the development industry that the introduction of CIL has made these negotiations more complex.”
And also see 8.18 ” the benefits of negotiated S106 is that it may take longer but should result in obligations that are bespoke to context.”
WBC were not in a position to charge CIL at the point when Dunsfold was granted permission but even if they had been I think CIL alone (without a supporting s106) would probably not have been appropriate for the reasons set out above.
Regards,
Kathy Smyth
Wow! At last, someone who knows what they are talking about on the complicated subject of 106 agreements! Do we want developer’s contributions to be distributed far and wide across the borough? Or do we want improvements to mitigate the impact of large-scale developments spent where they impact most? Judging by some followers’ comments, they would prefer that the money was spent elsewhere. Perhaps someone would like to tot up exactly how much the other developers in the east are contributing to the necessities of life – like road improvements, schools, etc? in fact here in Farnham Surrey County Council has just squandered several hundred thousand pounds of 106 monies by just not asking for a developer’s contribution towards schooling. Same developer is now laughting all the way to the bank!
The impact of Dunsfold Park will be felt far and wide – it is foolish to think that a roundabout on the A281 will sort it all….especially if commuters drive to jobs and schools and trains that are at least 8 miles away. I don’t have a beef with whatever mechanism is put in place – money will be needed in Milford, in Shalford, in Godalming, in Cranleigh… but if DP are let off the hook it will be a scandal – £450million cut from a £billion project (at today’s prices) makes any protests of poverty over negotiating down £14m contribution from the DP look very disingenuous.
Hi Kathy
You are quite right.. I do understand that the DP development had to go through the s106 due to the size of the development. My issues are that should the 1800 homes be extended to 2600 (which according to LP1 – they will) what happens then? Will there be new s106 obligations, for the additional 800 homes? will there be a new Planning application for those new homes? How will the Master Plan look then? when presumably there will be a need for a higher density plan which will be totally out of keeping with this rural Area – regardless of its Brownfield status… It is in the middle of no where or would CIL perhaps fit in better with this addition? as the basics have already been agreed.
MY issue with s106 is that they can be reviewed in 5 years – Which at the rate we are going with this one is not far off.. and many of the revisions relate to Affordable housing and change of Housing Mix and viability of the proposed housing. I think there will be issues with the proposed Bus plan that everyone that lives in the area doesn’t think is viable.
I am afraid I cannot find the email I sent to WW (due to new PC in Jan 2017) but pretty sure that due to the fact that you cannot Insert files or documents successfully on this website – I most likely emailed them direct. But I did save the Text on my PC (the link doesn’t work and doesn’t show on this website but it now takes you somewhere quite different – so maybe they can look through their archives. But this is the section I copied…………………………………………………………………………………………
Section 106 arrangements are currently being reviewed by the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Section 106A has the effect that any modification or discharge of a s 106 Agreement must be agreed by deed between the parties and in accordance with s 106B. It creates the right to apply in a prescribed form to modify a s 106 agreement once five years has passed since the agreement, or such shorter period as secondary legislation may prescribe. It prevents one applicant applying for a modification which may become enforceable against others who have not applied.
……………………………………………………………………………..
I believe it was written sometime in 2016 saying the Government were reviewing s106 and their viability.
My concern is the WBC and the Planners are so desperate to get this development on the road to save their Local Plan – that they would agree to almost any amendment made by DP. The Liason Group that is supposed to at least in part keep local residents informed – is shoddy to say the least and comprises of notes not minutes. One of the points raised in the report below is that keeping local residents informed of developments goes along way to improving relations. This is not happening here and makes for a disgruntled local community.
I have read the report you mention and it does make for interesting reading and not very positive towards CIL which I can understand and certainly not for larger developments – LPA’s have to pool their revenues in order to deliver larger infrastructure. s 106’s are site specific. Lack of transparency of where and when the CIL is going to be spent means that residents don’t feel anything is happening. But to be honest that has happened with the s106 I mentioned regarding DP and Dunsfold Road where the funds have been paid but nothing has happened and SCC are sitting on the money! So neither are ideal solutions.
I hope WW can help you with the link I found but Ed-in-chief is on hols so maybe not
Best
Denise
Ww. You have deleted my reply to Kathy and Patrick. What in my post was so dangerous to your cause I wonder?
Our apologies if we deleted a comment. If we did it was unintentional. As you will observe we let you rant on adnuseum because you level abuse to anything or anyone that doesn’t oppose Dunsfold Park. Do you have some vendetta against someone there we wonder? You sound as though you live nearby – perhaps at Lidia Park or somewhere in Stovolds Hill? Tell us do?
Was it that I revealed that Patrick and Kathy suddenly appeared together to defend the WW agenda, just as they popped up on the Milford FB discussion together to play down the Court decision? Or was it because I asked Kathy if she was the Kathy Smyth, consultant for the Springbok development next to Dunsfold Park? Or was it because I suggested they were brought in by you as sock puppets to push your PR agenda when you need to muster your troops now the decisions are going against Dunsfold Park and WBC?
We apologise for not knowing those who comment on this blog personally. Though on second thoughts perhaps we are not. There are some we have no wish to become acquainted with. However, the Kathy person you refer to seems to understand quite a bit about planning law, in fact a great deal more than we do. However,we know exactly who the consultants were for the Sringbok deveopment and if you care to look back on the report posted on that particular development you will find the name. We will trace back and find it, but it certainly wasn’t someone called Kathy!
You must refrain from making these wild accusations or we will remove you from this blog! We will not warn you again. All it takes is one click and you are gone Pepperpig. We don’t mind healthy debate, everyone is entitled to an opinion but wild accusations against other persons will not be tolerated! Get it!
I merely asked for Kathy to explain her interest… just google Kathy Smyth Springbok.
Or was it to resume your personal attack agenda by Patrick calling me Bob? (A misguided assumption)
Best stick to facts and not add all the spin, rhetoric and abuse.
One more warning Pepperpig and you are sausages!
Is that a threat of more deletions? You are making the wild assumptions, not me. I live many miles from Dunsfold and I am not named Bob. Please don’t assume that everyone that calls foul to your spin and pro-Dunsfold blog fits your own stereotype view of a campaigner.
pepperpig is without doubt the rudest person on your site. When Denise has an objection she is clear, factual and never rude; pepperpig just blathers on and makes no logical comment or criticism.
Hello rosaleenegan, In contrast to WW, I don’t use exclamations, capitals nor use personal insults about other persons (Bob Lies ? surely this is not acceptable?) . I call foul where I see an agenda.
Rosaleenegan – when I click on your profile icon it takes me to the WaverleyMatters2 profile page – is that your original sign in name?
Pepperpig – you have been warned – you will shortly be SAUSAGES!
What? Oh but sir! What did I say sir?
No that name is because I have a 200 page report on our 5 year dispute with WBC and it was originally going to be published under that name. I am a Milford resident and have put myself forward for election 3 or 4 times because this Council needs opposition NOT snarky comments on WW who only report on the failings of this Council.
Ok I understand. You created a profile in 2015 that was WaverleyMatters the same name as the previously banned forerunner of WaverleyWeb.