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.
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.