But not if the locals have anything to do with it.
They are putting up robust, detailed reasons why there should be NO MORE development in Alfold as the wolves are at its door again.
Here’s what the developer wants to build on Bridian Farm, off Loxwood Road, Alfold.
The developer intends to Carry On Regardless in Alfold.
And here’s why the locals don’t want it. An avalanche of objections to another 70 homes are pouring into Waverley Planners.
Here’s what one local said:
As an Alfold resident, I am enormously concerned about a number of factors:
Traffic – the village has an appalling bus service. It is impossible to work in Guildford or Horsham without driving. The nearest railway station is 25 minutes away.
There have been three fatalities on local roads in recent years. Pushing even more homes into an area with such appalling transportation infrastructure will only exacerbate the problem. It will also increase traffic in already congested Bramley/Shalford, so it will have a knock-on effect on a wider area.
Water – Alfold is low lying and on clay. There have been several serious problems highlighted in the national media, including Jeremy Hunt’s concerns about gardens flooding with sewage when it rains. This once tiny village can cope with more homes.
Amenities: Alfold has only a part-time post office and a relatively new cafe/deli. It has no doctors or dentists, no schools, no supermarkets, no takeaway restaurants, no mobile phone signal, and an overloaded broadband network. Adding more homes with no additional real facilities is total madness.
As we border West Sussex, many of the children now travel to school there, and also have to use the doctor’s surgery in Loxwood. I wonder if the fact that Waverley doesn’t have to meet the bill for these facilities is one of the reasons Alfold is so appealing for you to permit development? You receive the payment from the developers and the council tax from residents, but then don’t actually have to provide the services while they live here?
Rural life and dark skies: Many people moved to Alfold because of its small community and quiet lifestyle. The village has doubled in size in only a few years.
We are not being Nimbies. We have hundreds of new homes that have arrived in the last 5 years. Our local development plan, supported by the whole village, made it clear we do not welcome any more. These constant developments on our beautiful green fields are changing the nature and character of the village beyond measure. The place name
Alfold means Ân old fold, which was a clearing in the Wealden forest before it was cleared for cattle grazing. Cattle still graze in the fields where this development is proposed. Please leave these fields to the animals and reject this development.
There are so many other suitable brownfield sites for additional housing elsewhere in Waverley including the massive Dunsfold Aerodrome less than a kilometre away.
And here’s an even a more comprehensive and detailed objection. Click on this link below and see for yourself what the village dubbed by Waverley Councillors as ” Poor Old Alfold” has been forced to endure. Makes fascinating reading from an objector who goes the extra mile- and some.
The Waverley Web understand that the council’s planning officers will make the decision and not the Planning Committee!
The Supreme Court’s judgement in Finch v Surrey County Council judgement reveal planning decisions are routinely granted with consideration of the carbon impacts of development. Climate change and the requirement for climate adaption can be ignored with impunity by Local Planning Authorities. A situation that thrives when all governments fail to understand the consequences of their unregulated environmental laws. Why is this development decided by the planners without any democratic justification? Planners are accountable to no one and who checks their professional competence to make such decisions?
I simply do not understand why this Application for 70 Homes should be decided by Planning Officers and not the Planning Committee. The Planning Committee have more recently discussed Applications for 1-5 Homes. This a Major Application which will have a profound effect on our small Village and yet it will be decided by Non-Elected Planning Officers many of whom have no idea Where Alfold is – Let alone the Issues we have here.
In Waverley, Planning applications that are complex, controversial, or involve significant planning considerations are typically referred to the Planning Committee for a decision…..
Even if the Officers decide to Refuse the Application it will undoubtedly go to Appeal and where does that leave us with the Planning Inspector? who yet again has no knowledge of the Village and will not take into consideration the other Applications in the Village already Granted, unless he/she then go on to raise the reasons those Inspectors Granted the Appeal as has happened on Numerous occasions….
If they decide to Grant this OUTLINE Application the PRINCIPAL FOR DEVELOPEMENT for the site for UP TO 70 HOUSES is established and whilst RESERVED Matters allows for a bit of “Tweaking” they cannot reduce the Numbers as we saw with the Vistry scheme, WA/2023/01468 who Offloaded the Workspace Hub to the Village to sort out, after paying undisclosed sums to the Parish to get on with it in order to find more Space for the Village Green and make the Reserved Matters Application, more “Acceptable”. That RM Application was Granted by the Planning Officers under Delegated Powers!
This Extract from the UD Officer on the Planning Portal as of 8th May (After Submissions from the Public were effectively Closed on 2nd May) is relevant….
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Urban Design Officer comments for WA/2025/00597
From: Jonathan Salmon
Date: 28.04.25
From Page 2.
“….The open, rural suburban character of Alfold Crossways is a positive characteristic of the site’s local context that new development should positively respond to (see Policy DM4(b), the National Design Guide, NPPF para. 135(c) and the Alfold Neighbourhood Plan Design Code)….”
From Page 4-5.
“….. It is noted that the proposed quantum of development has been reduced from up to 80 dwellings to up to 70 dwellings. However, the non-contextual characteristics within the layout are likely partly due to the net densities required to meet the proposed quantum of development within the site (these average up to 33dph over the proposed developable area).
At this density, it would likely be harder to achieve a layout and built form that positively responds to the rural context due to parking standards, highways requirements and private outdoor amenity space requirements, alongside other policy and practical factors. For example, see the scheme to the south of Alfold Fuel Station (i.e. the Vistry scheme, WA/2023/01468), which features a net density of approx. 34dph and many of the aforementioned issues.
In light of the above, it is suggested that the current illustrative masterplan could be improved to better meet the requirements of Policy DM4, NPPF para. 135(c), the National Design Guide, and the Alfold Neighbourhood Plan Design Code. While the masterplan is illustrative, it is considered that it does not provide confidence that 70 dwellings could be appropriately provided within the developed areas shown in the parameter plans while achieving a more contextual response to the rural suburban character of the area…”
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why do we Bother?????
Yet another brilliant post, Ms Wordsworth – you are more prolific than William, and we don’t mean the W Web, but the other Wordsworth.
Poet Laureate For most of his life Wordsworth lived in the Lake District, and the main theme of his extensive poetry was of course, man’s relationship with nature, this William cannot help wondering what he would make of the destruction of your countryside over thee in Alfold.
It’s a “family” trait WW and I think Wordsworth would be Crying into his Daffs if he could see the destruction of our Countryside and our Once-little Village….
I will email (as I cannot put a Picture up here.) The Proposed Parking that has (again) only just gone up on the Portal – It was requested by SCC and it looks as if some poor Desk-Based Person at BOYER has got out a Pen and dotted the Proposed Parking Spaces with a Blue/Pink-Marker Pen.
I challenge you or anyone else to figure out where House No. 53 has gone – It still has a Garden but the House seems to have been Converted to Parking Spaces…. or equally Odd within the Apartments Poor old No. 26 has to squeeze their car (and they will have one!!) in between the Apartment Block and House no. 31 – who would appear to have their Car spaces Inside/Under the House????? It could just be the fault of my Magnifying Glass!!!