Another shedload of new homes on their way to Alfold?

objectionsubmitted

So sick of developers queuing up  to concrete over their village on the Surrey/Sussex borders – that its residents are writing  to the cash and carry on brigade to hear their impassioned please. 

 Denise Wordworth comments on the latest screening opinion by another developer who wants to build 80 homes on agricultural land with direct access onto the A281 Horsham/ Guildford Road adjacent to the Crossways Petrol Station.  

She says: “Please do not waste Tax payers money on this. We already have more than enough Planning applications for the Village of Alfold. And if we have to pay for Planners to review this application I will request a FOI into the costs relating to this Application.    

The developer claims:

2.5 The Site is highly accessible by car, and an approximate 5 minute walk to the centre of Alfold Crossways. The nearest bus stop is approximately 650 metres to the north of the Site serving the 42 bus route between Guildford and Cranleigh.

I challenge officers to walk this footpath – we do it daily with our dog – It is hazardous, WET, Noisy and scary with a young dog let alone children. I would also like to know what the centre of Alfold Crossways is, apart from our lovely Sports & Social club and playing fields?

2.6 The nearest settlement is Alfold Crossways which provides a few local services and amenities including the Alfold Crossways Village Hall, Alfold Sports Council Social Club, small-scale retail,

There is a M&S Simply Food and the garden centre (CLOSED) located approximately 60 metres to the north of the Site. The Wildwood Country Club and golf course (CLOSED – subject to planning) is located immediately to the north-west of the site on the opposite side of Horsham Road. 2.7 There are further amenities and services, including a Post Office (CLOSED from 1pm Week days),Veterinary Surgery and St Nicholas Church within the village of Alfold, located approximately 820 metres to the south-west of the Site. The nearest educational and medical facilities are located in Loxwood, located approximately 3 kilometres to the south of the Site.

A GP site under pressure and a school which is FULL! Children from Alfold are transported to oversubscribed, and dilapidated schools in Cranleigh – or beyond to Billingshurst in West Sussex. It is quite obvious that this, along with other applications already the subject of Appeals, are being lodged by Developers in the hope that at least one or two will slip thorough the Appeal process.

 This Village is Not Sustainable as it stands and until Government spends money improving local facilities for Alfold’s existing and new residents this size of development is not sustainable and developers should not be forcing our council into wasting our money.

With all of the accumulated developments in the area and outside the area in Horsham – the A281 is taking on more traffic then it was ever expected or constructed to accommodate.  The fact that Surrey County Council  doesn’t seem to recognise this as an issue is laughable.

It seems to me these developers are presuming that the former Wyevale Garden Centre Application HAS been approved as this Diagram shows – making it look as though this proposed development is adjoing another. Please explain??

Screen Shot 2020-02-15 at 15.27.46.png

There is no reason for Alfold to take any further development  as we have already exceeded our Minimum number of 125. This is a waste of money and should be thrown out despite the heavy tactics of the developers. It is not in the interests of the local residents nor the wider Borough to exceed the numbers agreed in LPP1 and I am sure LPP2 will confirm this

Denise Wordsworth

Alfold Screening Option Adj petrol Station 28 Jan 2020

15 thoughts on “Another shedload of new homes on their way to Alfold?

  1. Cheering you from the rafters Denise. Well said. Will the planning officers listen? Not a snowballs chance in hell. Their remit is to look at each application as a separate entity without taking into account anything already granted. The same applies to the utility services, they look at an application for 100 houses as a stand alone, they do not account for the 240 houses allowed in the next field and so they say the sewers etc can withstand another 100 homes we don’t need to do anything. Simples, just like their minds.

    • Well said. It will snow in August before the planners will listen to any of us.
      In fact, we wonder every day why the Government just doesn’t take over the planning system, and for that matter local Government. Do away with local democracy completely.

      With the new planning changes coming soon from Boris and his boys in the next couple of weeks, he may be well on the way.

  2. Well worded objection indeed!
    In the crazy planning world we live in, planning officers and committees are NOT allowed to take into account any other applications that are in the pipeline or out to appeal (even ones right next door)
    So it’s about time that cumulative impact is allowed within the national planning regulations. It is in other industries. It’s simply ludicrous!

  3. I am very sympathetic to the views expressed here by Denise and others but at the risk of stating the obvious, this is a request for a Screening Opinion, it is not a planning application (although it is a useful ‘heads up’ that one is on the way). Waverley has a statutory obligation to consider it and respond within a given time. They can’t just ignore it or reject it outright and an officer will have to spend time considering it.
    A Screening Opinion is about asking Waverley to determine whether, if the site comes forward, it needs a full blown Environmental Impact Assessment. The criteria which govern whether or not it needs an EIA are in Schedule 2 of the EIA regs. An EIA will generally not be required when a site for housing is less than 5 hectares and fewer than 150 houses. This is both of those about 3.5 hectares and 80 houses. So I won’t be surprised if WBC decide they cannot require an EIA, even if they wanted to, because I think their hands are effectively tied by the regs.

    • Kathy
      Thank you for your very informative comment. I do understand that it is just a Screening Opinion and that officers have to look at it – But aren’t these developers clever… Buy up land in various Plots and put in individual Applications so they are not required to have an EIA as each Application has to be assessed on it’s Own Merits based on, as you say, the EIA Regs. We have seen this before (Sweeters is a good example – Albeit they originally tried to have the larger number on the site and it was refused)

      I simply cannot understand why we do not have the ability to look at the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Applications especially when they are within spitting distance of each other.

      If the reg’s are tying the hands of our Planning Officers then they need to be changed and someone in power needs to speak up about this.

      • Exactly – see the comments of the one we made below. The name to watch out for is Jack Airey Boris’s new housing and policy advisor. Airey is leading the charge to strip local councils of meaningful control over local development altogether – the WW will be posting on what’s coming to us soon!

    • Developers are well ahead of the EIA game Kathy. Take a look at the Crest Nicholson development in Cranleigh. Phase 1 – no EIA required for that as it was for under 150 homes from memory 120. Straight in with phase 2 – again under 150 homes – from memory 119 – no EIA. Sewerage going into poo pits, and then being let out gently does it into the overloaded system.
      Then along will come phase 3 with no EIA – because developers will find their way around the rules – in fact they laugh at them – and us.

      One resident put his car in front of the Sales Office there because he was so disgusted with the construction of his home – urging people not to buy them.

  4. Thanks, WW, but I am familiar with how developers work.

    Surrey County Council have ruled no EIA is required for UKOG to explore for oil and gas at Dunsfold because the site is too small and ‘temporary’. Elsewhere in Surrey, Horse Hill has actually gone to production status with no EIA. So you don’t need to tell me the system for determining if an EIA is required is an abject failure.

    But the point remains that WBC’s hands are tied.

    As for Dunsfold, yes the village application had a full EIA – it amounts to many volumes.

    • Hi Kathy I don’t give a Toss if this is what is currently considered OK.. It is up to us to say it ISN’T why should we accept this just because” it is what it is?”

      If you don’t question you cannot change things and to simply ACCEPT how things are is not good enough.

      So I am sorry I will continue to Bang on – Even when I don’t have the Legal know-how – Because if we don’t – we end up in the MESS we are in and just sitting doing nothing and saying nothing is what us got us in this mess in the first place.

      Complacence is what allows this to happen and all of us have to say Something … Or put up and shut up

  5. Very helpful thank you, but we still don’t understand why developers like Crest Nicholson can phase a development with far in excess of 150 homes to get away without having an EIA – even if it is phased.It makes a nonsense of the legislation – doesn’t it?

    • Yes it does. As does allowing exploring for and extracting oil using a technique called acidisation. The clue is in the name.

  6. EIA NOT required – so no doubt they will now put in an application for their 80 homes in our little village… and why not? they have the potential of 56 Next door if they win at Appeal and the other 80 across the fields at Sweeters to join the 55 already being built.

    Just a little Tiny Caveat though to the greedy Developers………..From the WBC Planning Website response to Iceni Projects Ltd On Behalf Of W.E Black Ltd

    ” Is the proposal in or adjacent to other potentially sensitive areas, such as local
    designations, protected species, contaminated land, etc?

    The site is located within 500m of an area identified as Ancient Woodland.
    The site is located within an area deemed to be at a high risk of flooding by
    the Environment Agency.
    The site is adjacent to a petrol filling station.”

    Close to Ancient Woodland AND in an area deemed to be at a HIGH risk of FLOODING!! – Heyho let’s just wack in a new application and cost the Tax Payers a shed load of Money!

    Planning is a Joke and it is the Developers that are Laughing

Leave a Reply

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