But Your Waverley is doing everything possible to frustrate the development of Coomberry Cottage, Dunsfold Green, by preventing access across common land.

In May, a Government Inspector granted Sigma Homes’ appeal to build 53 dwellings east of Dunsfold Green, off Dunsfold Common Road.

But now, aided and abetted by Dunsfold Parish Council, Waverley is following its previously used tactic, which prevented another landowner from accessing five homes he won at an appeal just a few hundred yards up Dunsfold Road next to Chennells. You can read Waverley’s challenge here: Coomberry Cottage, Dunsfold.

 Inspector Mr G D Jones,  appointed by the Secretary of State, described the proposed development of the farm site as “sustainable” and would provide much-needed market and affordable homes – In total, 53 –  16 affordable units, comprising 4 First Homes, 2 Shared Ownership and 10 Affordable Rented / Social Rented dwellings; self-build and custom-build plots at a rate of 5% of the development; open space, play areas and a sustainable drainage system along with measures for their future maintenance; and payments towards providing subsidised travel on the local Digital Demand Responsive Transport system. Saying: He said the Council faced a challenge meeting its substantial housing requirements for affordable housing as 86% of the borough was within the Surrey Hills National Landscape (SHNL), Green Belt, or both. 

Last night, at a Waverley Executive meeting, Portfolio Holder for Planning Cllr Liz Townsend confirmed that by saying the uplift from …

710 p.a. to 1,374 p.a.

would be extremely challenging.

What will Aunty Angela’s building revolution mean for ‘ Your Waverley?

The appeal development would not harm the SHNL or conflict with the first part of Waverley Local Plan I Policy RE3 (Landscape Character Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The site and much of the surrounding area, including Dunsfold Village, fell within a candidate area in the ongoing SHNL Boundary Review.   Policy SP2  allows limited levels of development in/around certain villages, including Dunsfold, recognising that those villages not within Surrey Hills AONB or Green Belt offer more scope for growth. Again,  limited’ is not quantified or defined. In my view, however, particularly in the context of the existing settlement and given the relative scale of the proposed development, the appeal scheme cannot reasonably be said to be ‘limited’.

The SHNL Boundary Review, does not confer any planning protection. Moreover, there can be no certainty regarding the likely outcome of the Review, notwithstanding the area’s current status. At this stage the site’s inclusion within the SHNL candidate area attracts no more than limited weight. Natural England does not agree that the proposed boundary extension ‘washes over’ the village of Dunsfold.

Waverley has told the inspector that, in its professional judgment, his decision is unsound and worthy of a legal challenge. It is sticking to its view despite allowing other developments which received its backing nearby.

Housing supply

It argued that housing supply pressure within the Borough is largely due to substantial delays in the delivery of Dunsfold Park, a “new village” development of up to 2,600 homes located approximately a mile (as the crow flies) from the present site and allocated in the Local Plan (Part 1).

Substantial progress on development is now being made, with housing construction due to commence in 2025. As a result, the Council expects that the borough’s housing supply (including affordable and custom/self-build) will dramatically improve in the coming months as Dunsfold Park progresses. Considering this, the Council is of the view that permanent and harmful restricted works to the common at this location to facilitate further housing development are simply unnecessary and unwarranted.