Here’s what one of our Alfold moles thinks about the Dunsfold Garden Village Webinar.
Denise Wordsworth was among those watching the Webinar last Thursday, and here’s her take on all things Dunsfold Garden Village – which, just like Topsy – “just growed and growed.”
Well, I duly watched the Waverley Council Webinar this evening – and whilst a slick marketing exercise, with a few, answered questions nothing further was revealed to get excited about and nothing more than the 90 odd pages on the website.
Here’s how I see it. We will basically get three options:
Scenario 1: Progress existing consent for 1,800 homes and make subsequent applications to realise the full 2,600 home site allocation.
Scenario 2: Review and expansion of the consented scheme to realise full 2,600 homes
Scenario 3. Preparation of new planning application in line with Policy SS7 and SS7 for 2600 New Homes.
It would seem that S3 is probably what the New Owners would prefer. Still, based upon the comments this evening, 2600 is a done deal as it is in Local Plan Part 1 as an allocation so that the only constraints will be this FLEXIBLE Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)!
I am sure WBC would prefer Scenario 1, so it can crack on with 1800 Homes and work out the detail for the rest of the development as and when they come forward from a huge amount of Developers who will all be looking at this SPD and seeing that so long as they are flexible….. anything goes!
I cannot see how Scenario 2 is an option unless they just carry it through via this consultation – which would be completely skewed and undemocratic.
The original outline and S106 had benchmarks for when the phases would be bought forward – when monies would be paid out, and the delivery of the transport infrastructure. If S1 is taken, that will have to be enforced; if S2 or S3, surely it will have to be re-drawn as there will be 800 additional homes, further increasing the traffic?
The fact that vast swathes of LPP1 have been ignored (see Alfold Min 125 Homes) is now up to 343 via consent and won on appeal. As mentioned previously, with another 193 Homes under appeal and 30 new home applications that could take this little village of Alfold to 566 New Homes. I believe this is the largest number of homes for any of the larger villages and about 1/3 of the allocation for Godalming and Milford!
WHY?
LPP1 only seems to suit when WBC decide it is applicable – If they can vary it so much here in Alfold – Why not at Dunsfold Park? Guess it is something to do with DP offering the largest number of homes for Waverley and thus negating the need for other towns and larger villages to take their fair share?
Finally, the plan makes much of the wonderful “FACILITIES” on-site that will make this development a “Destination” REALLY?
Retail and the Food & Bev Outlets by the time there are 332- 553 new homes, and the new residents waiting for 3 years before the Primary School is built. But I am sure they can/will all cycle to Cranleigh/Loxwood and there will be plenty of senior school places available?
The figures from the Approved Outline (1800 New Homes) Indicated:
Pre-school 350 sqm Phased – 175 sqm Year 3 and Year 6
Primary School No Size – Phased – Year 3 and Year 6
Jigsaw School 7800 sqm – By year 5
Medical Centre 800 sqm – By Year 4
Community Ctr. 800 sqm – by Year 4
Care Home 7500sqm – By Year 6
Retail/Convenience – 1000 sqm – 750 sqm Year 3 & 250 sqm Year 4 ( Slightly bigger than M&S in Cranleigh)
Finance/Professional – 250 sqm by Year 4
Food & Bev Outlets – 900 sqm by year 4
Gen Office/R&D – 3700 sqm – 1000 sqm Phased Year 3, Year 5, Year 7
The Planned Roll-out of Builds over 9 YEARS was:
New Homes Tot. New Homes
Year 1 110 110
Year 2 111 221
Year 3 111 332
Year 4 221 553
Year 5 252 805
Year 6 330 1135
Year 7 320 1455
Year 8 343 1798
Year 9 2 1800
I just wish this was all more HONEST – so people could look forward to a New Garden Village that would have affordable first homes as well as the high-end ones. –But this is not it and it will not just affect the local villages, but Godalming/Witley and most obviously Cranleigh with their 1700 + new Homes
Denise talks about the SPD consultation being “skewed” do I detect a slight negative whiff from her commentary?
She then goes on to say: “It would seem that S3 is probably what the New Owners would prefer” How does she know this? (Skewing at its best!) I’m sure Waverley Towers would benefit from her inside knowledge.
John – Not in the slightest “bit” Negative, I am completely Negative and make no bones about it – I never have. It is simply too much housing in the remotest part of the Borough, with poor Infrastructure when it comes to Transport, education, medical facilites etc.. You can add a Bus service (eventually..) but we still have the same roads and small lanes, they are not going to change. The few improvements on the table with regard to Priority Junctions etc may improve the existing system, but when you add in the additional Cars that will come out of this development it is going to be horrendous.
From what was originally put forward by Troy in 2016 for WBC for 2600 homes for LPP1 they phased the Development over 13 years, then if you look at the s106 agreement the more significant road improvements (Shalford and Bramley) don’t kick in until there are 500 PLUS new homes OCCUPIED… In an ideal world these improvements would commence Prior to the Development, but that is not going to happen is it?
The comment regarding the S3 being the one most likely for the new owners … I lifted that from the SPD Document (page 20)
“Scenario 3. Preparation of new planning application in line with Policy SS7 and SS7a
The final scenario would involve a more comprehensive approach in the form of a new scheme:
• This scenario is most likely in the context of a transfer of ownership…”
But then I am sure Waverley Towers have read the SPD and know this already?
Thanks for the comprehensive reply Denise,
I certainly agree with some of your points – mainly the complete lack of a comprehensive transport infrastructure plan for this remote location. But of course even IF there was one, it would mean ripping apart the beautiful countryside surrounding the site.
One of the main selling points mooted by Rutland was that this Garden Village would be greener than green and virtually a self contained village. BUT as you point out, much of the infrastructure required to create this self-contained aspect will only be phased in as construction emerges. However, I hear that Homes England are waiting in the wings with an infrastructure plan (we’ll have to wait and see for what and how much)
I expect Trinity (or whoever else) will want to see a quick return on their investment – so expect build-out to be rapid.
The bigger picture means that this site was too good to be ignored by Waverley- and most Local Authorities would give their eye teeth for such a site to support their housing requirements set by HMG
Hi John
I do understand that and I also get the fact that it is a large Partially Brownfield site so I do not Blame WBC – I just wish they had held out for a better design that would be Greener than Green – Maybe they think they can get that with this Consultation. I really disliked the Master Plan in the original Outline and I can see they are proposing a less formal design in the SPD – But it still looks pretty awful.
I know I have posted this extract from Clive Smith the AONB Advisor in November 2020 – But he says it so much better than I ever could
“I am in some difficulty making my response to your consultation on these documents because neither the
Inspector nor the Secretary of State, this last time, were concerned that any harm would come to the
Surrey Hills AONB because of this new settlement.
As the site is outside the AONB, the two AONB issues have been whether the development close to the
AONB would spoil its setting and whether additional rat running along the country lanes east and west of
the congested A281 would spoil the character of those inadequate country lanes to take the traffic.
Concern must be expressed at the title of the new settlement as being “Dunsfold Park Garden Village”
which is a misnomer. It is not a “Garden Village” and such use of the term misleads the public and decision2
makers. The Garden Villages built in the past are at lower densities allowing sufficient space between
buildings for large trees to grow. The proposed modern housing estate layouts shown in the Masterplan
bear no resemblance to more organic and less formal arrangement of buildings in Surrey and Sussex
villages. In Dorset, Poundbury has many of the garden village attributes in place which are not reflected in
this proposal.
Whilst the proposals include landscaping around some sides of the proposed development and fingers of
undeveloped areas would penetrate the residential areas, the actual development would result in
buildings being too close and in private ownerships to achieve the arcadian setting of former garden
villages. Furthermore, some of the buildings towards the centre are of 4 storeys and formally laid out that
bear no resemblance to Surrey or Sussex village centres. From an AONB aspect there would be a lack of
sufficient large native trees within the residential enclaves to soften views from the AONB. The
development would appear more as an urban intrusion into those AONB views.
So, I am not sure that the development proposals are quite as the Inspector envisaged when concluding
that views from the AONB, presumably Hascombe Hill, would not be spoiled.
Regarding increased traffic on country lanes through the AONB, in all probability there would be
substantial increased traffic movements arising from the proposed western link to the development with
the adjoining country lanes through Dunsfold and Hascombe villages together with Markwick Lane, Mare
Lane, Salt Lane, Station Lane. This route would be chosen to join the A3 at Milford to avoid the more
congested and difficult route up the A281 and Guildford.
There appears to be an absence of any proposals to manage and mitigate the environmental harm increased traffic, including heavy goods vehicles along these routes. Before and at the Public Inquiry I sought on behalf of the Surrey Hills AONB Board substantial developer financial contributions towards mitigating the impact of additional traffic on the country lanes in the
Surrey Hills AONB. I was assured orally at the time of the Inquiry provision would be made in the highways
S106 Agreement. I would ask that those progressing the development to contact me, the Surrey Hills
AONB Director, Rob Fairbanks, and Surrey CC Highways to discuss the introduction of a Quiet Lanes project
to also include lanes east of the A281 partly or largely funded by this substantial development….”