Alfold developers flying on Dunsfold’s slipstream?

 

 

Our apologies if you have already received this post today -but a gremlin found its way into the WW works this morning! 


With all this doom and Gloom and the Corona Virus hovering, every now and then the Waverley Web likes to inject a little humour into our posts to brighten up our day!

Would you Adam and Eve it? The developers of the former Wyevale Garden Centre in Alfold are OBJECTING, yes seriously folks, OBJECTING – to another developer’s application to build on a field a hop, skip and jump away.

That man in Bristol has been busy dumping homes on Alfold – again!

 Developments (Alfold Garden Centre) are OBJECTING to the ICENI Application on the other side of the Petrol Station WA/2020/0260

 Why wouldn’t they? Houses are not exactly flying off the Housing-market at the moment (see Sweeters Copse/Cranleigh etc… ) and with their own development’s views being ruined by the Proposed development next door. –Who on earth would want to buy a property that has 86 New homes on their doorstep and looking into their gardens – Just off the busy A281. Especially the more expensive ones that will border the Wildlife Corridor that will abut the New Development.

But we are  sure the village will be thrilled to know that ICENI will be expected to pay 80K x 4 towards a new Demand Responsive Bus service until the Dunsfold Park Development kicks in with their proposed new bus service and they have to sort the pavement out towards the Crossways. –Shame about the Crossways though – During one recent week alone, according to “Angry of Alfold’  three  cars have driven into the ‘No ENTRY’ lane. No doubt Dunsfold Park will not be in a hurry as film crews are crawling all over the place filming blockbuster – Jurassic Park. No doubt there is more money to be had from dinosaurs than new homes?

Why are Alfold and the eastern villages losing their green fields? Because the Government Inspector argued that schemes already consented, and referred to the e.g. Knowle Park’s Initiative in Cranleigh on the West Cranleigh Nurseries site which has not been built out. In fact, the Reserved Matters application is still languishing somewhere? Despite developers saying at the time: “We want to build homes for village people.”

MP Angela Richardson recently told ‘Bob the Builder’ Jenrick – Secretary of State for Housing and Communities that she wanted consented applications built out by developers. If not thy should either be “incentivised or penalised for not doing so.”

 

1 thought on “Alfold developers flying on Dunsfold’s slipstream?

  1. Well the Good news is that the Iceni Application has been Refused by the Officers for a few very good reasons:
    1. Reason
    The proposed development by reason of its location within the
    Countryside beyond the Green Belt would result in undue harm being
    caused to the intrinsic value, character and beauty of the open
    countryside. The proposed development would therefore be in conflict
    with the Council’s Spatial Strategy and the proposal would be contrary
    to Policies SP2, RE1 and TD1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan
    2018 (Part 1) and retained Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002
    and the NPPF 2019.

    2. Reason
    The proposed development would not comprise limited development in
    and around the village of Alfold. The development would therefore
    conflict with the Council’s Local Plan Spatial Strategy and the
    development, given the limited access to services and facilities without
    reliance on private car use, would result in unsustainable development.
    The proposal is contrary to the Policies SP1 and SP2 of the Local Plan
    Part 1 (2018), retained Policy D1 of the Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF
    2019.

    3. Reason
    The proposed development would result in the loss of the best and
    most versatile land without a strong case for development on this site.
    It has also not been demonstrated that the proposed development
    would not result in the fragmentation of an agricultural holding. The
    proposal is contrary to retained Policy RD9 of the Local Plan (2002).

    4. Reason
    In the absence of an onsite provision of a LAP and LEAP the proposed
    development would not provide sufficient space within the site for play
    and recreation as required by Policy LRC1 of Local Plan Part 1 (2018),
    therefore the proposal in contrary to the Development Plan and the
    NPPF.

    5. Reason
    The application contains insufficient information to make a fair
    assessment of the condition and useful life expectancy of a prominent
    mature oak tree subject of a Tree Preservation Order that makes a
    positive contribution to the street scene and character of the area, its
    proposed removal would be detrimental to the visual amenity and
    character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to retained
    policies D1, D4 and D7 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 and
    policies NE1 and NE2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1
    2018.

    6. Reason
    The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to
    secure the provision of affordable housing within the meaning of the
    NPPF, appropriate to meet Waverley Borough Council’s housing need.
    The proposal would therefore fail to create a sustainable, inclusive and
    mixed community, contrary to the requirements of Policy AHN1 of the
    Local Plan 2018 (Part 1) and the NPPF.

    7. Reason
    The applicant has failed to enter into an appropriate legal agreement to
    secure the provision of environmental enhancements, play areas and
    leisure improvements. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy ICS1
    of the Local Plan 2018 (Part 1) and the NPPF.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    They also mention …………….. Alfold is one of the villages within the third tier of the Settlement Hierarchy, below the four main settlements and the five larger villages. As a
    result, Policy SP2 only allows for limited levels of development in/around
    Alfold, which is considered to be a ‘Rural Community with very limited
    services’.

    And this………… The allocated number for Alfold is 125 dwellings, which has been significantly overachieved with a provision of 254 dwellings permitted. These permissions
    include around, but not limited to, 135 dwellings being constructed on
    greenfield sites. As such, the Council considers that the village has
    accommodated more than limited development around its settlement
    boundary and given up a number of greenfield sites in doing do.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    So we can only hope that if this does go to Appeal – that everyone that Objects to these additional 86 New Homes – Cuts and Pastes the Info above from the OFFICERS and posts it on the Appeal Site!

    Unusually…..
    “More than a Little Happy – of Alfold”

Leave a Reply

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