LAUGH? WE AT THE WAVERLEY WEB NEARLY CRIED when our Farnham correspondent told us about South West Surrey MP, Jeremy Hunt’s latest wheeze – er, initiative!
Oh! and he may even want to run the country?
‘I simply don’t understand it,’ she wailed. ‘Has he had some sort of Damascan conversion on the B2130 to Dunsfold?’
So it would seem for the King of Hypocrisy to be belatedly riding to the rescue to save Godalming and Farnham from major development! Talk about trying to bolt the stable door after the horse has bolted!!!
For those of you who don’t bother to read Our Jeremy’s billet-doux when they pop through the letterbox, the man who was so opposed to development at Dunsfold Aerodrome that he – along with Anne Milton, former MP for Guildford – gave evidence to the first Public Inquiry, is now asking if Waverley residents would like to see the majority of local house building take place on the brownfield site –
up to 6,000 homes!!!
How the mighty have fallen! Back in 2017 – a mere four years ago – it was none other than our Jeremy who asked one of his minister mates to call in Waverley planners’ decision to consent 1,800 homes on the brownfield site. He was not as upfront about his involvement as his Guildford colleague Anne Milton, who held the whip hand at the time.
Subsequently, Secretary of State Sajid Javid gave the scheme the go-ahead, but even then, it went all the way to the High Court – driven hell-for-leather by Protect Our Waverley (Who? We hear you ask, as you may well, given PoW – who nobly claimed they were standing up for all of Waverley, despite all indications to the contrary, that it was just Dunsfold they were interested in and then disappeared – not quite in a puff of smoke but as good as – when they lost their battle in the High Court, and it was all over bar the shouting – of which there was A LOT!).
So why is our Jeremy – after years of opposition – suddenly taking such a keen and renewed interest in housing at Dunsfold Park? He’s not so much trying to breathe new life into the scheme – which appears to have fallen by the wayside under the aegis of Richard Turncoat, the Bursar at Trinity College Cambridge – as to give it an injection of steroids!
Bob Lies and Little Britton will be choking on their cornflakes and spewing out their coffee – although the latter will, no doubt, continue to bluster that he had nothing, absolutely nothing, you hear me, to do with PoW – this from his new platform as an Alfold Parish Councillor – where he continues to do his utmost to interfere in every aspect of what will happen at Dunsfold Park.
So, there you have it, folks, one of our local MPs, who was a dyed in the wool opponent of housing development at Dunsfold Park, has done a complete vole face and now wants to know if residents would like the site to …
“take as many houses as possible to take the pressure off the rest of the borough.“
But before Little Britten reaches for the defibrillator to revive Bob Lies, Jeremy hasn't been entirely insensitive. He has at least included a tick box for those who feel 6,000 homes there are too many!
Will Dunsfold Aerodrome become home to 6,000 – yes really, six thousand, new homes?
Dunsfold Park decision – called in by the Secretary of State.
11 thoughts on “Got any more great ideas for Dunsfold and the eastern villages Jeremy Hunt?”
The whole Dunsfold fiasco leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. The original proposal was a great piece of work. Not only some lovely homes, but excellent transport proposals, top sustainability scores, affordable homes, work places and development controlled locally. A few local but noisy people complained and indeed the Tories massively opposed it leaving the field wide open for developers to ride roughshod over other areas. I and Friends of the Earth strongly supported this development on land which was not in the greenbelt. Included were sustainable travel routes into Cranleigh – helping support Glebelands School and local businesses, a retirement home in the centre so residents could be part of the village life, links to Guildford for commuters and much more. Working with a benign developer this was a really exciting proposal. Sadly thanks to Jeremy, Anne, their local friends and of course changes in government policy we are left with this mess.
Sue, I have just re-read what you had written because I wasn’t sure if it was sarcasm. And now I googled you to reveal you were a Guildford MP. I am stunned that you have written so much fluff without any basis of fact. – “links to Guildford for commuters…” you say. Exactly what is that? “Sustainable travel routes to Cranleigh…” a bike? the canal? Which brochure did you find this fanciful stuff?
We couldn’t agree more – what a mess!
“excellent transport proposals, top sustainability scores, affordable homes, work places and development controlled locally”
Sue Doughty – which bit of all the stuff you have written do you really believe? Sustainability? – behave. Excellent transport proposals? – so 6 miles to the nearest station, no buses and 88% of all residents will commute by car out of DP to get to work. DP is the most unsustainable location in the Borough and never met the criteria for garden Village status – it was another political fudge.
Sue Doughty is absolutely correct. In the villages that had absolutely nothing, at least they were getting something. A sustainable transport system in perpetuity. Better than a couple of buses a day out but hardly anything back. Who else in this borough of Waverley proposes squillions in 106 contributions and a school? None of the other developers in the eastern villages are providing anything like that proposed at Dunsfold in comparison. Let’s be fair?
There is nothing factual in what Sue says. The villages get nothing that is of benefit to them, and the CiL money is earmarked to help mitigate the damage to the roads of 4000+ extra vehicles and will fail at that anyway no matter what junctions in Bramley or Shalford you “upgrade”. You were there at the Planning Inquiry – so you heard how Stagecoach said the bus service was unviable, despite what that developer promised (and we all know that developers promises mean nothing). As for a school – well a relocation of a DP school already on site is not changing anything. WW I am surprised at a Planning Spokesman like you using the words “sustainable transport policy” – the policy amounted to “we have no trains, everyone will use their cars to get onto the A281 so we’ll build a roundabout, and we have a landlocked canal that you can cycle to.
This ship has sailed so it is moot talking about it, but please don’t say black is white.
Almost as bad as supporting the Royal School site over Red Court – have you any connection to Cllr Ellis?
What a piece of Rubbish 1600 Homes?? it was 1800 – Can’t even get that bit right!
Having just returned from London on the A281 – The usual Bottle Neck in Bramley due to a rather badly parked car outside the Shops followed by a tail back due to a couple of Cyclists who were just enjoying our beautiful countryside as they have every right to. (No doubt there will be many many more getting on their Bikes for the weekly Shop, School run etc in the future………………)
Followed by the Bumpy section of the road 1/2 a mile from Elmbridge Traffic Lights towards Alfold with its many Patches and Potholes… Dunsfold Road still has diversions and I won’t mention Run Common road as we have all forgotten that it exists
Whilst the DP Application did offer some facilities for the Village and at least a Bus service, many of these would not come into effect for years. What MR Hunt doesn’t seem to appreciate is that you cannot change the A281 or any of the roads to Godalming, Witley etc… they are what they are Country Roads
How could anyone, even one with the brain capacity of a Newt, think that you can shoe-horn 6000 New homes on Dunsfold – or is it just a cunning plan to say no 6000 is too many – maybe just 4000 ….. and we will all go Hurrah!!!
No Doubt the Tories will be getting many more donations into their grubby little mitts as the developers queue up for this option.
Let’s all write to Surrey County Council and ask highway officers if they have removed the badger colony yet? If the present situation on the Run Common bridge weren’t so serious, it would be worth taking over a London theatre for yet another eastern village farce. The Run Common bridge will remain closed until Nelson gets his eye back?
Whilst Dunsfold stands as a significant issue of concern one can wonder if it is not being cynically used to deflect attention from an immediate crisis. That of Farnham and its road/car banishing. The consultation findings were published in October and Hunt seems uncharacteristically mute in his latest missive as to precisely where he stands on the next crucial step.
Dunsfold is having a major impact on lives well in advance of any physical works. If indeed there will be any. For example new homes in Alfold before a single turf is lifted at Dunsfold will impact places such as Sidney Wood is destined to become a breath of fresh air for its nearby new residents and I wonder how the owners of the wood will react to that. The new residents will be living in a constituency destined to see even more of the same all trying to find schools doctors local shops and new shock absorber workshops because of the worn-out country lanes. Would you vote for such incompetence at your first opportunity? No.
Hunt is playing people for fools. I believe this time he has read the runes wrong. Deflection only works for so long.
Farnham will be his undoing.
I think it is good that the Badgers were protected – But I fail to see (despite reading the SCC Updates) why it took so long – I reported MORE pot holes the other day and was asked to be more specific as they HAD done some patching – How am I supposed to know exactly where each Pot Hole is – I told them the rough area – But I am not driving and taking pics at the same time it is Ludicrous – As far as SCC are concerned there are no issues with the A281 it is an “A” Road – Hardly on par with the A3 as the amount of numbers after the “A “indicates but maybe “someone” cannot count that far???
I am sorry – unless someone offers some MAJOR Infrastructure Improvements This Partial Brownfield site will Never be suitable for this amount of development and yet again JH and others will look like Idiots – The first Inspector said 3600 was too many… and accepted the 1800 was sustainable – If this all gets turned over they HAVE to justify this.
By the way – My car is now saying there is an issue with my Tyre pressure – Not that I have the car-IT-Tech to figure this out! – But will get the OH out of the Man-cave to help me! – Obviously nothing to do with the Pot-Holes???