A sea change washes over Alfold? – But nothing to do with Care Ashore.

Word on the street – or, in this case, the lanes – is that there has been something of a sea change in Alfold. That tiny little village (population circa 1059 in the 2011 Census) has, it would appear, finally thrown in the towel and decided that it might be better to – whisper it who dares – attempt to work with the Dunsfold Developer rather than oppose it every millimetre of the way!

Could these petrol heads soon be on their way to Dunsfold? Not if -some of the neighbours – have anything to do with it?

Long may it last … although if Little Britton of Protect Our Waverley (POW) gets his way and is parachuted into the Chair of the Parish Council in May, the truce may be short-lived – very short-lived!

Although, according to our informant, even the current Chair of the Parish Council had clearly had enough of the preening Little Britton Aka (POW). He recently attempted to throw a spoke in the wheel of the council’s bid to make peace with the Dunsfold Developer and offer its support for the latest application in relation to the Aerodrome.

Who the blazes does this arrogant little pipsqueak think he is? Unless we’re very much mistaken – and, if we are, we’ll apologise – both the Aerodrome and the Dunsfold Developer were in situ long before those Johnny-Come-Latelys, Little Britton and his wife, rocked up at their des res overlooking the airfield.

No sooner had Cranleigh Removals driven out the gates of Hall Place Farm than Little Britton and his wife had signed up to the Provisional Wing of Protect Our Waverley, intent on blasting the development of anything at the Aerodrome to kingdom come. But didn’t care an s*d  about the green fields of Cranleigh, Farnham, Ewhurst, Godalming’s Arons’s Hill, Milford Golf course, and now more Ewhurst countryside going under more concrete!

The usual suspects from the Provisional Wing of POW were naturally salivating at the prospect of yet more rabid NIMBYs joining their ranks and laid out the red (or do we mean green?) carpet and embarked on yet another orgy of self-congratulation.

Talking of Protect our Waverley, where are they when they’re needed? We seek them here, we seek them there, the poor beleaguered residents of Milford, Farnham, Godalming, Cranleigh and Ewhurst seek them everywhere but that rather unsavoury and steadily dwindling band of one-trick ponies seems to have evaporated in a puff of smoke on the steps of the High Court, with Little Britton now trying, mendaciously and repeatedly, to claim he’s nothing to do with them and hasn’t been for a very long time.

Just in case – he’s missed this clip and he’s conveniently forgotten his membership we will remind him here…

Screen Shot 2019-02-21 at 10.33.57.png

Isn’t it high time someone prosecuted Protect our Waverley under the Trades Description Act?!

Because as sure as hell it ain’t doing what it says on the can!

4 thoughts on “A sea change washes over Alfold? – But nothing to do with Care Ashore.

  1. WW – Maybe because we have NO choice ….. the rest of the Borough were adamant that DP would go ahead and unlike Brexit – It was a DONE DEAL – so we have little option other than to make the best of it.

    You know my views on this – I don’t have an issue with new housing – I have and always will have an issue with the lack of infrastructure improvements that come with this development. (or any of the other F**Wits trying to squeeze in what they can on the back of the DP development.

    Those road improvements will make little difference to the fact that the A281 is a single carriageway road – The Shalford Junctions are about the only ones I can see making any significant difference – Bramley will be as useless as ever, as will Elmbridge Road.

    The Buses may make things a little easier although I still have my doubts – As you will not see many people on the Buses (or Bikes) with their Weekly Shop will you? they will be using the On-line delivery services – so more and more traffic on this already Very busy road. I personally love Buses and they get a significantly higher rating than the Trains do – But that is in Towns and Cities and rarely in Remote Villages.

    You know what limited facilities will be available in the first 10 years of the Development at DP – Hopefully by the time I pop my clogs the Villages WILL see some benefit.

    WBC currently have one of their Air Testing Widgits in our Front Drive (rather too far from the roadside for my liking) – It will be interesting to see the results (if they ever publish them) all I can tell you is my Trees and plants on the roadside are BLACK with emissions despite the rain we have had recently.

    As the saying goes “We are where we are” there is nothing wrong with a good dispute so long as you recognise you have lost and there is no point going on about it – Try to make the best of a Bad outcome – I hope the Parish Councils and Borough councils will now work proactively with DP to make the best of this – I for one will support anything DP do to make it better for our Villages….

    From a purely selfish point of view I will enjoy not having the HGV’s thundering past our home at 6am when they get the new access route – But I hate the fact they are making the access route through Ancient Woodland – Having studied the area I simply do not understand why they could not have made it go around the area – It is essentially a Large Copse not a friggin’ forest!! – They could surely have done a bit more work on that?

    As ever on a quiet Sunday afternoon – In Grumpiness
    Denise

  2. Sadly, as we have said before. The Eastern area of the borough is now getting the worst of both worlds. Development right across open countrysde – and on the largest brownfield site in the brough. But at least the parish councils now appear to be working with the developer rather than against. Perhaps because they are beginning to realise that jobs will be provided on the new Dunsfold development. Rather than jobs being removed from most developments over there e.g. Hewitts Industrial Estate, Wyevale Garden Centre, West Cranleigh Nurseries etc.

  3. Maybe Waverley Web should delve into why that woodland is being cut down for the access road? The developer stated categorically it had no alternative on the site it owned. The developer was asked by Waverley did they own any other parcels… to which the answer was no. But delve a little deeper (and Waverley never do) and you will find an adjacent parcel of land owned by the flying scotsman to the south of the site of the spinal road… which wasn’t declared. If it had been it would have saved the ancient woodland, although the developer would not have been able to gain from the increased value of a field for phase 2 of housing.

  4. Sorry – ‘Not Impressed’ but sadly the Flying Scot never speaks to us mere interfering mortals. However, we won’t give up and if we seek no doubt we will find the answer to your questions.

    We hate to see any sncient woodland sacrificed on any developers’ alter. However, ‘Your Waverley’ claims the loss of ancient woodland elsewhere in the borough isn’t a problem. According to Liz – Th Boot – Simms – now departed – you can alwys plant some more trees!!! No doubt, she knows of someone who can supply the ancient kind – new ones over 600 years old?

Leave a Reply

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