Did Waverley slip out the news that they had upped the housing allocation at Dunsfold from 1800 to 2600?
In a bid to ensure they keep Columbia Threadneedle on the right track for a Garden Village – ‘Your Waverley’ has decided to put out its own public consultation on its vision for Dunsfold Aerodrome.
However, Cllr Kevin Deanus (Con Alfold), a long-time opponent of the scheme, reminded everyone that although it was called ‘Dunsfold Aerodrome’, 75% of the site was in the parish of Alfold. A village under attack from developers on all sides with appeals pending.
Although Trinity College, Cambridge, still own the former aerodrome site, Chief Planning Officer Zac Ellwood told a council meeting that he is in talks with Columbia Threadneedle. The revelation that the public consultation is now for 2,600 homes and not the expected 1,800 shocked some Alfold residents. One of whom had plenty to say on the chat function. Including whether anyone had even considered the cumulative effects of all the other proposed developments on the surrounding eastern villages.
Alfold residents fear there will be multiple developers, and the site will be carved up by ‘box builders.’ Some homes are four storeys high. Said one on the chat function.
” How can Waverley ensure there will not be multiple developers and that any sort of cohesive development will result in shops; schools; medical facilities. Cranleigh’s services are already overstretched.”
However, with 190 homes at Milford Golf Course agreed last night, Waverley has announced it is confident that it is back on track to build 900 homes a year.
Andy Mcleod, the Portfolio Holder for Planning, blamed previous Tory administrations for causing the borough to slip behind its 590 homes per year target. Claiming the ‘Rainbow Coalition’ had inherited a significant backlog when it took control in 2019. Now the council is confident it can build 900 homes a year up to March 2026. It also claims to have a 5.2-year housing land supply.
Watch out, developers! Waverley has a 5.2-year housing supply tucked under its belt!
Whilst the upper figure of 2600 was always mooted by the council for Dunsfold, particularly when an all singing all dancing eco-town was proposed in 2006, residents were relieved that only 1800 were given outline planning under the previous owners.
So what is the change? Is it the new owners pushing for maximum housing on the site? Or is it Waverley quietly upping the allocation themselves as a desktop numbers exercise so that they can now claim a 5.2 year supply of land. (We all know it will take much more than 5.2 years to build even 500 homes at Dunsfold!!)
The appendices in the link below show how the council arrived at a five-year housing land supply. However, not everyone is convinced these figures are robust and will stand the test of developers who are going over them with a fine-tooth comb?
WW thinks they will be pulling this data to shreds.
A big section of houses of 10 or less so often with a net gain of 1. So in this section why has WBC included some houses where the permission has already expired (eg May 2021) without the development being started?
Cranleigh High Street 38-40. Seem to us it appears twice? Once with expired permission for three and then again for current permission of five.
Look at some of the Alfold consents – looks like they have expired or are about to expire?
Then there is consent for 49 given in outline in 2017, hasn’t been started, but they have added it back for the end of the five years.
Then there is Milford Golf Course which, according to the appendices – will start to deliver from January 2023. However, Cala is allowing 18 months to sort out the restrictive covenant. So how does that work?
We feel sympathy for the unfortunate officers who will have to stand up and defend this at the Thakeham Homes, Alfold – Red Court, Haslemere and other appeals? Barristers are tying up their briefs now!
Cllr Macleod conveniently omitted to mention is that a 5% buffer has now been applied to Waverley caused by the under-delivery of completed houses. That is in the text of the main document.
Re “Did Waverley slip out the news that they had upped the housing allocation at Dunsfold from 1800 to 2600”
Well, no, in my view they didn’t.
If you remember, 2,600 was allocated to Dunsfold in Local Plan Part 1 policy SS7 which was part of LPP1 adopted in February 2018. It was therefore first mooted for 2,600 in a draft two to three years before so from about 2015/16.
So I don’t really see this as a case of slipping anything out.
I do agree with you on some of the sites in the 5 year plan though. I had noticed some already apparently expired consents. Being charitable, perhaps there is stuff we (the public) haven’t seen ……….perhaps they have asked all the applicants with expired consents if they are going to renew or perhaps some have applied to renew. Just seems a bit unlikely……
As for Milford Golf Course, I thought I read that the Inspector at the Badshot Lea appeal inquiry discounted the Golf Club numbers from making a contribution towards the 5 year plan because of the restrictive covenant. As far as I know, nothing has changed in that respect so I was rather surprised to see that one included.
Although we believe that almost everyone knew that 2,600 was the end figure, minds were concentrated on 1,800. We very much doubt the final figure will be 2,600 – there will likely be many more bearing in mind the figure the wannabe developers are paying for the site. As for Milford – no doubt Mr House will have something to say soon?
Kathy Smyth is correct, LPP! (Feb 2018) has an allocation of 2,600 houses. Which is what Waverley Planners think the site is “capable” of delivering. The figure of 1,800 houses is what the site has current outline planning permission for. This has all been in the public domain for some time.
I also doubt the final figure at Dunsfold will be 2,600.
In the not very distant future Waverley will have to start thinking about where it is going to put new houses post 2032. Hopefully this time the leaders at Waverley (whoever they are) won’t just bury their heads in the sand and hope the whole problem with go away like the Conservatives did between 2010 and 2015 when they were in complete denial about the Conservative Government’s own policy to increase the new housing figures. The Waverley leaders at that point even maintained for a period of time that they were entitled to reduce the numbers from the figures in the old South East plan (which were around 240 a year as I recall) which just wasn’t going to happen. That attitude put Waverley on the back foot and lost us control of the process, directly resulting in the unplanned and uncoordinated development around Farnham and Cranleigh.
Hopefully next time around there will be some proper place making and planning, although I wouldn’t want to bet on it. So I would be very surprised indeed if Dunsfold Aerodrome didn’t feature somewhere in all this……..but it won’t all be able to go there …….
Anyway, the immediate issue is to get LPP2 sorted out…….
I think we all knew there was 2600 in LPP1 my concern is that OUTLINE was granted for 1800 and I just wanted to know if this consultation would mean they did not have to Apply for Outline for the additional 800 Homes or whether they would simply add it on to the Exisiting Outline for 1800 or maybe they will come in with a whole new Outline for the full 3400 that was mooted several years
ago!
The problem with Consultations just like the first one; is I am afraid they are Skewed because there are FAR MORE RESIDENTS in Farnham, Godalming, Hindhead and Haselere that would rather as much Development was shovelled down here than in their neck of the woods.
As per the 2011 Census:
Farnham is 32.57% of the Waverley Population
Godalming/Milford is 18.17%
Haselmere/Hindhead is 14%
Witley is 6.44%
That is 71.18% of the Waverley Population – It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out which way a CONSULTATION would go does it?
This is what frustrates me so much and why I bang on about us having such a “little voice” and if WBC cannot see it which ever colour they are then we here in the East are in serious trouble.
Hi WW
I just posted a comment and nothing here!!! If I have done something wrong do let me know but didn’t get the usual Confirmation
OK – Still not sure my posts are working – But at least I got a confirmation on my last one!! I will repeat my first and if it comes up twice feel free to delete. Let’s hope the Covid-Brain can remember what I said!!
Basically I think most of us knew that Dunsfold was 2600 in LPP1 – But OUTLINE was for only 1800. My concern is that the additional 800 homes will simply be included in the original Outline, without a New Application for them or in fact for the full 2600 or 3400.
Consultations are all good and well – But we know what happened several years ago when it went out for Consultation, the majority of the Borough voted in favour of DP 2600 and why? Because the vast percentage of the Population of the Borough DO NOT LIVE HERE!
There are stats that prove what I am saying and I just wish people understood this.
Census 2011:
Farnham is 32.57% of the Borough Population
Godalming/Milford is 18.17%
Haselemere/Hindhead is 14.00%
Witley is 6.44%
So total of the larger Villages/Towns is 71.18%
Cranleigh is 9.70% with the rest of the Eastern Villages together about 9.5% so that gives the Eastern side of the Borough about 20% – How can any sort of Consultation about Dunsfold Park be FAIR?
I am sure I am not the only one that can look at the figures and it won’t be fair.
I really do not know why I bother, it is all a sham and if Councillors cannot see this what ever colour they are then it makes a mockery of the whole system.
No worries just a little local difficulty here at the WW today. Our apologies.
WW
Thanks I was beginning to feel I had been kicked off the site – Wouldn’t blame you!!!
We would never kick you off our site. How we wish everyone cared about Alfold and the eastern villages as much as you do. Sometimes, we think we might just as well save our breath – because breath is too good to waste on people who just don’t care. Thankfully, you do. We wish there were more like you.
Denise, this masterplan is a planning policy document not an application so yes, there will have to be a further planning application presumably by whoever buys the Aerodrome.
As for the numbers…….I think you and I have debated this here before but I still maintain your problem isn’t that your area is outvoted in consultations by the rest of Waverley. Your problem down in Cranleigh and Alfold is that you don’t have Green Belt protection because you are just over the border of the Metropolitan Green Belt, as are some areas around Farnham. It’s monumentally difficult to get land out of Green Belt and can only be done at the strategic plan making stage (I think) so I can’t see any prospect of this situation changing anytime soon. I’m sorry, but I think Alfold and surrounds are a soft target.
Thanks Kathy – whilst I understand that lack of any protection here due to lack of Greenbelt (designed for URBAN AREAS) and AONB we do have AGLV and potential AONB borders moving so I will not give up on those here. What frustrates me most is that there is a complete lack of transparancy about this.
I hope you are Sure that there will have to be a New Outline Application for these 2600 – I haven’t seen anything to say so – I am sorry I am obviously an ignorant Villager and I do not understand what is going on here.
Please do not say we were NOT out Voted we quite simply were I have no idea where you live – But I live here in Alfold and we WERE outvoted by the rest of the Borough in the last Consultation – I am sure I can go back through my archives and find the figures – or better still check with WBC
Best
Denise
Hi Kathy
One last comment are you anything to do with the The Springbok Sustainable Wood Heat Co-operative Limited.?
Just a question as what I think is being done there is admirable and all part of what we should be doing now to reduce our Climate Change emmissions and good for you – But if you are – Could I respecticfully ask if you have any Connection with regard to the Dunsfold Park Application?
I know people like me are just annoying – But if you are, could you perhaps be a tiny bit prejudiced in wanting the DP development to go ahead regardless of the rest of the impact on our Villages? – Just asking ?? If not then I apologise in advance and may have got the name wrong.
Best Denise