Has Waverley Council conspired with developers to throw Alfold to the wolves?


Simple answer. Yes!

The village now boasts two borough councillors for Alfold & Dunsfold, both Conservatives. So is the new administration punishing them? 

A few hours after yesterday’s post,  Developer has a cunning plan for an Alfold development. This is what the Waverley Web received!

An application by Oriel Housing Association S52-2321486 to change a legal agreement between developers Care Ashore/Thakeham Homes, Waverley and Surrey County Council. An agreement that currently provides for a mixed development of  99 homes, of which 30% are “affordable” off Loxwood Road,   Should be easy with no Borough Solicitor in post. The last one left a year ago for a  Sussex authority.

Here’s Oriel HA’s request. Not a material amendment that would require planning consent or a new planning application requiring approval which would make it subject to public scrutiny. No, just seven short days for residents to comment at the start of the Summer holidays! And Wham, bang – no doubt officer’s approval?

Here’s Oriel HA’s request in full below.

Oriel July 2023

After months of villagers writing to Waverley and the MP, telephone calls, and desperate appeals for information from the council’s head honcho down the long pecking order of senior planners, all is now revealed. The developers have conspired with ‘Your Waverley’ ‘in a let’s stuff Alfold ploy’ by changing the 106 legal agreement to provide 99 market and 30% affordable homes to…  

99 – 100% rented and shared ownership homes. Off Loxwood Road.

Together,  with a scheme for another 66 in the pipeline, the developers publicly voiced ambition for 425. Landowner  Seaman’s Union Charity  ‘Care Ashore’ once told villagers 

“We are the friends of Alfold.”

Who Dares Wins

The winner? Why ‘Your Waverley’, of course, because with one swipe of the pen, its planning officers, who now have a stranglehold on Waverley’s  Planning system, can slash the long housing waiting list for its mates in the housing dept.

So has a council that has consistently refused to allow affordable homes to be grouped together and wanted them distributed to prevent discrimination between private and social housing occupiers now changed course? 

A road that one former Tory councillor said Waverley would never travel:

  Waverley Council will never build ghettoes, he said.

The Waverley Web may not be Mystic Meg. However, we predicted that the developers lied in shovel loads to a Government Planning Inspector, and he would swallow them  – hook, line and sinker.

They told the Inspector they would provide all singing and all dancing facilities for the market homes in keeping with the village character, along with 30% “affordable” homes.

Fear not; they cried via their plumply salaried top planning barristers – we will give the village that has already extant consents for 477 homes (many also granted at appeal by the same barrister), and now under construction… 

“A demand responsive bus service.”

Quelle surprise –  the new owners now want Waverley to strike out that pledge.

Well! They would, wouldnt they.

We kid you not. When asked for an explanation, the Inspector swallowed the bullsh*t from the developer wannabes that Alfold residents could ring up and call a bus/taxi service to take them wherever they wanted – a sort of  Super Uber.

We didn’t swallow it, nor did villagers, but naive Inspector Harold Stephens BA MPhil Dip TP MRTPI FRSA most certainly did, along with claims that Alfold was near five railway stations and an ample supply of shops and amenities. Let’s not forget the quick bike ride to Horsham/Guildford and Cranleigh along the A281, or Wildwood Lane, where you can be ploughed down by lorries or buried alive in potholes!

We received this from villager Denise Wordsworth following the appeal decision in 2022.

This is not the last from Thakeham as they have the OPTIONS on the WHOLE SITE – So watch this Space WW this is the beginning of the BIG 450 homes they wanted in 2014/15 and by stealth they will get it – and the village will Snoooooooze..

Because no one at WBC Cares – Someone has to take the lack of its 5 Year Housing land supply – so why not Alfold? 


7 thoughts on “Has Waverley Council conspired with developers to throw Alfold to the wolves?”

  1. Planning in the borough is in a mess and has only got worse under this administration. The turnover in officers, changes to the planning procedures, subterfuge and general lack of a coherent strategic plan is indicative of an administration which has totally lost control and lacks competence. The existing residents are the ones who suffer.

  2. I am afraid I do not see any “Consultation” how can we comment on this? The system is in a Complete Mess and our Village is bearing the Brunt of it. The FootAnsty letter of 29th June 2023 quite clearly states AFFORDABLE not Social Housing.
    As for the Demand responsive Bus Service – The Inspector in his APPEAL DECISION Document Obviously took this seriously see below………….

    “39. First, there would be a contribution of £400,000 towards a Demand Responsive
    Bus Service (DRBS) to serve the appeal scheme and the local area. This would
    secure five years of the service to add on to the five years already to be
    provided by the scheme approved on Land East of Loxwood Road, making 10
    years of provision in total. The Inspector in that decision17 was satisfied that the
    five years of DRBS funding would enable provision to be made pending the
    sustainable transport package, including regular bus services, being provided by
    the Dunsfold Park development. From the evidence that is before me it is now
    clear that there will be significant delays to this scheme. However, a doubling of
    the DRBS period to 10 years would cater for the longer anticipated timescale.
    The DRBS would improve the frequency/availability of the services available and
    could be used to access larger settlements or the surrounding railway stations.
    40. Although the Council described the DRBS as a “glorified taxi service” I note that
    DRBS has the strong support of SCC,18 who have received Central Government
    funding to provide DRBS in Mole Valley and are currently preparing a funding
    bid for DRBS in Tandridge, Waverley and Guildford”

    He then drones on about the lack of any Intrinsic Beauty of the area and the Lack of a 5 year Housing supply, which I believe is now Null and void as there are no Housing Targets?? He then states……………

    “Planning Obligations
    91. The NPPF indicates that planning obligations must only be sought where they
    meet all of the following tests: (a) necessary to make the development
    acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c)
    fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.49
    92. The s106 Agreement secures provision for 30 affordable housing units on site
    which is necessary to secure compliance with Policy AHN1 of the LPP1. It also
    secures the maintenance of play space, SuDS and open space which are
    necessary in order to make the development acceptable in planning terms and
    which are directly related to the development. In addition, the s106 Agreement
    secures financial contributions to fund the DRBS; traffic calming measures and
    travel plan monitoring which are necessary to address the impacts of the
    development, to secure compliance with Policy ST1 of LPP1 and the NPPF.
    93. In my view, all of the obligations in the s106 Agreement are necessary to make
    the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the
    development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
    development. Therefore, they all meet the tests within Regulation 122 of the
    CIL Regulations. As such I have taken them into account in the decision.”

    and then this………………………………….

    “96. Concerns were also raised about foul drainage in Alfold. Thames Water has
    recommended suitably worded conditions to secure the provision of precommencement details of additional water supply and foul water infrastructure or an infrastructure delivery plan. In my view these planning conditions address these concerns in a satisfactory manner.”

    So by passing the Foul Water issue to another Company it addresses the issue???

    And so I simply want to know WHY they want to make 99 “Affordable” Homes ? It has to be part of a “Bigger Plan” So that the rest of the Houses they want to build can all be Market homes, which would result in the creation of a Ghetto within the Masterplan

  3. There is currently no agreed definition for affordable housing. So the definition defaults to the completely irrational government definition for affordable housing, which is based upon market value not gross local income.”The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing as housing where the occupant is paying 30% or less of the gross income on total housing, including utilities.” This is the definition that should be used and enforced for “affordable” housing in Waverley BC.

Leave a Reply

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