Just a little thought on Woking’s unmet need straight from our sun lounger?

Screen Shot 2018-08-06 at 09.51.16.png

There’s nothing like sitting on a sun lounger sipping a Pink Gin listening to the waves lapping against the rocks to get the old brain cells working is there?

Here’s a thought for you which we haven’t seen expressed anywhere to date but I think it is a point which could do with an airing.

Dunsfold Aerodrome was in the latest version of the local plan right from the start, wasn’t it? So it has been tested and consulted on at every stage.

dunsfold_granted

When the Woking unmet need figures were introduced and then confirmed by the Inspector in 2017 Waverley’s answer was to add numbers TO THE REST OF THE BOROUGH including Farnham. See MM3 on page 7 below.

So in the unlikely scenario that CPRE wins its challenge to the local plan on the Woking unmet need point, people should be asking themselves why should it be Dunsfold Aerodrome that gets thrown into doubt and removed from the local plan (the PoW case) and not all the additional houses which were bolted onto Farnham (and undermined their neighbourhood plan if you remember) and Cranleigh and various other places including some in the Green Belt?

In this case, it should really be “last in, first out”

Just a thought? Back home soon when we will reveal all the countries reading the Waverley Web!

You can read it for yourself here:

Schedule of Main Modifications

11 thoughts on “Just a little thought on Woking’s unmet need straight from our sun lounger?

  1. No I am afraid it shouldn’t be Last in First out! as it stands currently:
    Farnham equates to 32% of Waverley Population and is only taking 25% of Allocated Housing
    Godalming equates to 18% of Waverley Population and is taking 14% of allocated Housing
    Haslemere equates to 14% of Waverley Population and is taking 9% of allocated Housing
    Cranleigh equates to 9% of Waverley Population and is taking 14% of allocated Housing (excluding Dunsfold Aerodrome) if you add that in Plus Alfold/Dunsfold The East of the Borough is taking over 40% of Allocated Housing in this Local Plan YES OVER FORTY PERCENT

    So I am afraid you will never change my views or those of many here in the East who feel they have been ridden roughshod over. You simply cannot keep saying it is Nimbyism when a 40% increase in Housing is going to happen here in the East, with No trains, limited schools and medical facilities and a Cr*ppy single carriage road to Guildford/Horsham and Please do not bang on about the Improvements that DP plan to make. Even SCC admit it will make little difference due to the Bottle necks at Bramley and Shalford.

    Enjoy the Pink Gin!

    Like

  2. I wondered how long you’d be before reverting to your PR agenda. You acuse many many people of Nimbyism yet WW you are the most Nimby of all – recognise these words about Dunsfold Park? :

    “Not exactly a self-contained village but if the numbers could be increased to 3500 or even 5000 this could be a fully sustainable new community with the full range of facilities. There are those opposing any residential use of the brownfield Dunsfold site but to most fair-minded people this is an obvious solution to meeting the increasing demand for housing in the borough. Of course we will accept new housing in Farnham but not at the expense of despoiling our town, its semi-rural fringes and areas of significant landscape quality. The infrastructure of Farnham with its traffic congestion linked to illegal air pollution, over-subscribed schools, a creaking sewage system all clearly show this ridiculous amount of permitted, planned or proposed new build in Farnham is disproportionate and unsustainable. We also hear Surrey CC has a £3bn shortfall in funds to improve the infrastructure to meet the proposed increase in new housing in the county.
    Those opposing the Dunsfold application are claiming major traffic problems on the A281, yet the traffic congestion/air pollution is far worse in Farnham.”

    Nimbyism personified.

    Ps. Since I illustrated your PR agenda gor DP against POW shown by the tag cloud in the right hand column of this site you have not tagged DP nor POW in any subsequent articles… why is that?

    You haven’t written about CIL either. I gave you the links – not on your brief?

    Like

      • Ignored the questions again – very revealing – why so coy? Re: tags the last 14 articles about POW or Dunsfold have no tags associated with them. The previous 14 relevant articles all had POW and DP and Local Plan tags. Your bias and obsession was demonstrated, and since then you are trying to cover the evidence of such. You are a puppet.. and we can see it.

        Like

  3. Well of course the traffic problems are worse in Farnham – You have more cars because you are a BIG TOWN compared to the rest of us and you have MAJOR ROADS. Pollution isn’t such an issue here because we are currently Rural (or at least semi rural) – although I can assure you it is bad enough on our Rural part of the A281, just have to look at the Black Filth that comes off our plants and hedges on the road side.

    If you increase the housing to 5000 where, pray tell, are they going to go to work, school Hospital etc.? .. Let me guess it will all be provided onsite god forbid anyone wants to leave the Ghetto… They still would only have the A281 or smaller B roads to get to a train station or any of the larger towns and villages – This is La LA Land. If SCC has a £3bn shortfall – how it is proposed the infrastructure in the East could accommodate this? Really…. we can’t even get pavements on some of our roads here!

    Like

    • Hi Denise – well the traffic problems in Farnham are replicated in Godalming, on the A3 and the approaches to Guildford, A281 et al… – so Farnham don’t have exclusive rights to chaos nor to “a town under threat of despoliation.”

      I agree that this blog is useful – for filling in gaps where WBC hide behind their deliberately bad website, and PR written missives from Julia Potts. WW clearly has “friendly” access to what arrives in WBC’s post bag, and onto the desk of DP. It will be useful to have WW when it comes to the Elections. However – my big beef is that WW can’t stop there – clearly he is angry and has an agenda that, when revealed, is rather unsavoury:

      It is the double standards I have an issue with:

      the faux protests that all the eastern villagers are Nimby’s in million pound mansions – yet that quote I pasted above demonstrates he is the definition of Nimby.

      The insults: he unfoundedly accuses me of potentially defaming someone, yet he is blind to the 15+ articles on this blog where we see the name “Bob Lies” – that is the definition of defamation – erroneous and damaging to character. There are 20 or so residents, parish councillors, borough councillors, ministers who have been abused and defamed on this blog and repeatedly had their characters muddied – not for entertainment, not for community crusade, but to damage them. For the record POW have never done anything like that.

      Selective blindness – funny how so many really big stories (such as July’s CIL hearing and the DP paying b*gger all in S.106 agreements) get zero coverage by WW. Yet we get a Leisure centre story for a project that is not on the table yet (but it was an opportunity to shout that Farnham is hard done by) He is very selective.

      The double standards, again – WW waxes on repeatedly about how frivolous he believes the JRs and Court Cases are (put to one side my view this is DP PR consultants timing these articles to WW) yet I wonder if his intense bitterness (and surely not jealousy?) comes from his very close colleagues failure to get a JR on Brightwells (because they failed the Court test of being a body of “good standing”). The irony is had it been submitted via The Farnham Society they would possibly have succeeded and Julia Potts would then be abusing them in her skewed press releases about he Council having to defend in court. Yet WW repeated lays into to POW for attempting, and succeeding in doing what his friends failed to do.

      Denise, you are right, there are not a lot of hits to this site, but I can’t let spin be written unchecked – and when 60% of articles are well timed attacks on individuals and community groups in the East of the Borough it does make you question just what is driving WW.

      Like

  4. Sorry – Didn’t think you were on holibobs still – I will hold my pen until you return – so long as you too keep quiet about Poor ol’ Farnham!!! – I know the above was from PP – but it did rile me to be reminded of it!
    Now home with a Large V&T after sitting on the A281 in TWO Temp Traffic lights due to Util work (which I know needs doing) it just brings home the flippin’ chaos that temp traffic lights on the A281 cause due to it being Single Carriageway (so we are now down to ONE LANE) Between Grafham and Alfold Crossways. Not a happy bunny!

    Like

    • Hi Denise,

      WW knows exactly where that quote comes from – that is why he won’t respond to it.

      This is the 3rd time in a month he has claimed to be on holiday” yet we have seen many posts and of course sitings of a 42 year old man sitting in public galleries….. despite professing to be fishing/sizzling/drinking. His posts stand out from his stand ins as they don’t use 42 exclamation marks per post.

      Like

  5. Heheh – I was convinced HE was a SHE – Why else would you post a pic of a big fat lardy man on a beach? – I know there are several as you can tell from the writing and some are more vitriolic than others – it is a useful forum for keeping things going even if so many don’t read it – some do!

    POW has been rather silent for a long time so guessing that is due to the forthcoming Appeals – But updates from them would be useful – when I speak to neighbours they are of the opinion that it is all done and dusted! so have stopped even worrying about it.
    Apathy will be the death of the East of the Borough.

    Like

    • Hi Denise. He is certainly a he! A 52 year old, but only slightly stout. The last post on the POW site is about the CIL hearings. http://Www.POWcampaign.org and tje one before that was the on the Judge’s decision to proceed with POW and CPRE’s cases against WBC and the Secretary of State. As you know, if POW are successful it will kick Dunsfold Park into the long grass … or maybe into the ancient woodland they plan
      to bulldoze.

      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