Will Guildford & Cranleigh MP Angela Richardson be among the Government Minister’s bag carriers to join the Tory revolt over vaccine passports?
The Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Gove Minister for Housing & Levelling up has told her constituents that she intends to vote against new Covid restrictions, saying:
Mrs Richardson is one of three ministerial aids to Michael Gove; the third may not vote at all, which apparently could lead to him being sacked if he has not agreed to his absence from the House with the whips. Therefore, today’s vote could leave the Minister with NO PPS’s.
If Mrs Richardson is among those determined to rebel today, Tuesday, it is another damaging blow to the Prime Minister. (A long list of PPS’s – are technically unpaid members of the Government who are given a pass and access to the ministerial buildings. If they do rebel, they will be expected to resign.
This would mean as many as one-quarter of the Government’s team of ministerial aids are on “resignation watch.”
Mrs Richardson was sacked several weeks ago for abstaining on a crucial Government vote but was reinstated 24 hours later.
She was reinstated as his PPS a mere 14 hours after she was sacked for disobeying Boris the Bully’s order to help save Owen Paterson from taking his lobbying punishment like a grown-up.
Until then, it was unheard of for Angie to ignore the whip. Not that we know she did – much more likely, she was out posting a selfie! Better known as the ‘Kodak Kid’, Angie has never knowingly disobeyed her Buddy Boris. Does she pay newspapers to put up great big pictures of her preening into their lenses?
If Dunsfold Aerodrome’s new Garden Village is removed from Waverley’s five-year housing land supply – will all hell break loose for Alfold and elsewhere in Waverley?
A Government Inspectors decision on Thakeham Homes appeal for 99 homes on productive farmland could affect the rural village on the Surrey/Sussex border. However, it may have an even bigger impact on sites elsewhere in Waverley. This would put at risk both Local Plan Part 1 (15 years in the making) and LP2 – its strategic sites allocation is now out for public consultation.
But Thakeham asks – why has LP2 been three years in the making?
Pressure will increase exponentially on Cranleigh and the eastern villages, Red Court in Haslemere, Secretts in Milford – in fact, anywhere in Waverley that isn’t close to a Special Protection Area (SPA) or The Green Belt if this appeal is granted.
Waverley’s legal team headed by Barrister Robin Green is up against one of the stars of the planning circuit Sasha White. Waverley must be shaking in its shoes as Mr White represented Catesby Developments winning planning permission for the Alfold housing development at the Sweeters Copse appeal when the Inspector costs awarded against the local authority.
The character of Alfold is now in the hands of Inspector Harold Stevens. Tomorrow, Tuesday on the final day of the hearing. The Sussex-based developer eager to build in the countryside to assist a cash-strapped Alfold charity must provide him with strong reasons for dismissing Waverley’s housing land supply figures.
Waverley claims it has 5.2 years – partner developers Thakeham Homes and The Merchant Seaman’s War Memorial Society claim it has 3.7 years. The developer claims Waverly’s figures are suspect and homes on numerous sites around the borough are neither credible nor achievable in the time frame.
Waverley’s Planning Officer Kate Edwards endured uncomfortable moments from Thakeham’s testy barrister. But she stoically kept calm and carried on defending the council’s five reasons for refusal.
To keep dumping yet more housing in this small rural village, was “unsustainable.” she argued.
From a base of 400 homes in Alfold (2011 census)the village is allocated a minimum of 125 in the Local Plan. Some 250 homes have already been consented to mainly by appeals.
Mr White argued that to increase this by “only 99 homes only represented a 15% increase.
“Therefore, just a limited increase?”
Although she trusted his maths, Miss Edwards disagreed this was a fair comparison.
Mr White argued replacing three mature trees including a 100-year-old oak protected by a tree preservation order with 198 semi-mature trees, was mitigation enough to remove one of Waverley’s reasons for refusal? The developers’ mitigation measures to improve the landscape and biodiversity would remove two reasons and tilt the balance for consent?
With her seat becoming warmer by the moment, Miss Edwards valiantly defended the council’s position repeatedly.
She told him:
However you argue this our argument remains the same. This development is unsustainable.”
Battling on, with monotonous regularity, he asked `Miss Edwards – if the council had no five-year land supply – by inference its development plan was out of date?
She disagreed.
Did she know what constituted a strategic development site?
You have a five-year old development plan – No ~Local Plan Part 2 and you are still relying on the 2002 plan. Are any `Neighbourhood Plans available in Alfold or elsewhere in Waverley? If they are, are they up to date? As far as Alfold’s Neighbourhood Plan is concerned all I can say is… it is becalmed!”
Miss Edwards responded that she largely agreed but argued that the Lack of LPP2 did not preclude decisions based on the LP1.
He said: The plan is not compliant with the NPPF, because there is No LPP 2 and the lack of a list of non-strategic sites is a barrier to improvement. Therefore your Plan is not up to date is it!
He claimed the minimum number of homes in the plan was just that; the minimum and the maximum was unlimited.
Before answering further questions on past appeal decisions, he warned Miss Edwards that her professional credibility was at risk.
Two hundred fifty-four homes have already been approved in Alfold either by Waverley or successful appeals. Sweeters Copse, Brockhurst Farm etc. where he said various previous Inspectors had recognised that although the minimum limit was reached, homes were needed to meet the wider borough need.
Miss Edwards said housing numbers were decided by capacity and many other issues.
Villagers were infuriated by comments made by Thakehams’s landscape architect Miss Ede who cast a rosy glow over Alfold’s ample shops, pubs and facilities.
Said, one villager.
If they honestly think that the new residents on this site will cycle to Cranleigh/ Witley/ Godalming they must have lost the plot- If they think the new Demand Responsive Bus Service (One Mini Bus 12 seats) will be able to cope with the new residents that may want to get to schools/medical appointments or train stations at different times and therefore not need a car – REALLY? it just beggars belief that these people think they can hoodwink the Inspector with such tripe!
Here at the Waverley Web – we cannot wait to hear who rocks from the parish council to plead Alfold’s case? Perhaps, Chairman Penny Maine? Or, God forbid, maybe even Chris ‘Little Britain’ who has spearheaded the campaign to stop development at Dunsfold Park through “Protect ~Our Waverley?’ Because no doubt the developers are holding champagne on ice in readiness for him?
Save our village – Stop Alfold becoming a town. Mary Brown is pictured holding the green sign.
On Day 3, Inspector Harold Stevens heard from Mary Brown, a resident of Alfold.
After many hours of evidence over three days of the six-day Inquiry, Mrs Brown was allowed five minutes! Yes, folks. Just five very precious minutes.
So much for “localism!” However, the Inspector allowed her a little longer and told her not to rush.
Although there was no attempt by the developer’s barrister to cross-examine her evidence – the Thakeham Bully Boys came out in force later when they insulted and repeatedly questioned the competence of Waverley’s planning Officer Kate Edwards. At one point, he even queried her professional abilities during a distinctly shabby tirade. Despite the hostile questioning Miss Edwards kept calm and carried on.
Perhaps they thought to make a fight with Mrs Brown, a stalwart of the village, might alienate the Inspector? So they turned their guns on Miss Edwards instead.
Mrs Brown drew the Inquiry’s attention to recent Government announcements and planning legislation – including the Environment Bill, which promotes building on brownfield sites and not in the countryside.
** Secretary of State for Housing Michael Gove has proposed that residents be the overseers of development – and that they be “the final arbiters of development in their area.”
Mrs Brown said Alfold had already exceeded its housing quota of 125 homes with 395 consented and two appeals in process. Alfold was a small village with little or no infrastructure – no schools, GP surgery, poor bus service, no railway stations, and almost everyone relied on their cars.
She said there had been many reforms to the planning system since the development for 99 homes on the appeal site in Loxwood Rd had been refused by Waverley Planners. The Government had a change in its approach where homes should be built in future, in part due to the Pandemic.
The whole issue of the environment has become more critical since the Pandemic. The UK Government has issued guidance on mental and physical wellbeing and the importance of the environment in which we live. Isolating families in villages without facilities is a recipe for disaster that leads to theft, drugs, and anti-social behaviour.
The Environment Bill spanning the next 25 years promoted the protection of the natural environment, evidenced by Cop 26, and homes should be built where they can benefit communities, not damage them.
“The Bill in the Queens Speach asks us to be greener to keep us safer.”
A lifetime working in public health had shown her that protecting the natural environment was now more important than ever before.
She said further development in the countryside in Alfold should be refused and homes built on brownfield sites. But this had not happened in Alfold. A huge rush of appeal decisions had brought with them a doubling of the size of the village, bringing with them increased traffic but no improvements in infrastructure. Villagers travelled, mainly by car, on congested busy roads to schools for health care, shopping and almost all their needs. The Loxwood Road was fast and busy, and the noise and fumes increased as other areas like Billingshurst were growing fast. She argued housing development should now be going into empty offices and redundant stores in major towns served by quality transport and health-care services.
Affordable housing is being “dumped into a corner of this vast Springbok Estate. Some families being allocated to these homes will need support, access to public transport, (very few buses in a day) GP surgeries, hospitals and health Hubs Alfold Village does not have these facilitates. “
“As for affordable homes. Those built elsewhere in Alfold recently at Sweeters Copse had not been popular. Homes did not sell and rents turned out to be double those of the older affordable housing built elsewhere in the village.”
She told the Inspector there were planning consents for over one million homes consented across the country had not been built.
I am at the end of my life, but I feel for the younger generation – they need space – and not buildings all over our green and pleasant land. Here in Alfold we wonder if this scheme for 99 homes is just the start of a Thakeham’s ambitions to move further across the Springbok land in due course.”
**Mr Gove has paused the former unpopular planning reforms proposed by the previous Secretary of State, Robert “Bob The Builder” Jenrick. He said he wants to review and engage constructively with his colleagues – one of whom happens to be his PPS, the MP for Guildford and Cranleigh Angela Richardson.
The Inquiry continues. The developer’s description of Alfold today was diametrically opposed to those held by villagers, including Mrs Brown and Waverley Borough Council.
A developer’s spokesperson described it as – A village where everyone can cycle safely to Rudgwick and Cranleigh, Is close to the railway stations in Billingshurst, Witley and Milford. A village with good bus links, shops, pubs, and other amenities and residents in easy reach and can walk safely to shops.
There was much ado about trees when Thakeham Homes branched out to identify tree, landscaping and planting issues with ‘Your Waverley’s tree experts.
It was Day 2 of a Public Inquiry before Government Inspector Harold Stevens to hear an appeal by Thakeham Homes and The Merchant Seaman’s War Memorial Society against the refusal of Waverley planners to build 99 homes on land off Loxwood Road.
To gain access into the agricultural land from Loxwood Rd, Alfold Crossways, the developer needs to demolish a bungalow called Hollyoak appropriately because it has a 100-year old oak tree in its garden. The Holly and the oak must go to make way for the development of homes that include s30% affordable.
A Tree ~Preservation Order protected the oak tree gained earlier this year because of its importance in the street scene. However, the developers claim it was a cynical act after permission was refused to stop the development from going ahead.
Landscaping and tree experts waxed lyrical all day on the importance of landscaping, particularly where a proposed new development would back onto many bungalow homes on Loxwood Road. Waverley’s expert witness aptly named Mr Field said that any development on an open field would have a “high, substantial and major, adverse” impact on the Crossways – particularly viewing it from The Alfold Sports Club and Grounds, two public footpaths, and properties nearby.
Mr Field accepted that Thakeham’s updated planting plan improved its original scheme.
Thakeham argued that it would be planting 198 new trees, some of which would be “large canopied trees”, some of which would be ten years old, and in 15 years, they would mitigate much of the harm and shield soften the view.
Thakeham’s lawyers referred to Waverley’s emerging Local Plan Part 2 (Strategic Policy on Sites), which he claimed included proposed development sites elsewhere in the borough. These included development in Areas of Great Landscape Value and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
“Alfold has non of these categories, does it? It is not in the Green Belt, AONB, AGLV, South Downs National Park, Godalming Hills?”
He also referred to other successful appeals in Alfold Village granted on appeal where successive Inspectors had given little weight to landscaping and visual amenity concerns, saying there would be only limited harm. This included Brockhurst Farm, Dunsfold Road, Sweeters Copse, Loxwood Road phases one and two, Wyevale Garden Centre.
Mr Field maintained that the intrinsic value and beauty of the appeal site must and should be safeguarded. Development there would have a dramatic and damaging effect on that part of Alfold Crossways. Homes built on the agricultural land valued countryside, which would change its character forever.
Waverley Towers saw Day One of a controversial planning inquiry begin yesterday. A joint appeal by a Sussex-based developer and an Alfold Charity to build in the countryside.
Will Thakeham Homes succeed in shredding’Waverley’s latest five-year housing land supply figures?
The partnership of Thakeham Homes and the Merchant Seamen’s War Memorial Society wants to build 99 homes with 30% “affordable” on agricultural land off Loxwood Road. To gain access, they need to demolish a bungalow called Hollyoaks and an oak tree covered by a Tree Preservation Order.
However, if bungalow and tree are to go – along with a vast swathe of the countryside, they have to convince an Appeal Inspector over the next six days that the development is sustainable in the small village on the Surrey/Sussex border.
Day One saw Thakeham ripping to shreds Waverley housing land supply data claiming it has only 3.76 housing supply and not the 5.2 years it boasts it has under its belt.
Alfold claims it has already had more than its fair share of development – and fears that if current appeals are allowed, it will be swamped with housing without the infrastructure to support it.
However, the developer is already hoovering up countryside all over Sussex, turning it into bricks and mortar, claiming Waverley’s housing needs were urgent. The borough was “incredibly constrained” – but the Alfold appeal site was not in the Green Belt, AGLV or AONB – and Alfold had NO Neighbourhood Plan! Arguments put forward in the 2017 refused appeal for 425 homes could not be attached to this smaller-scale development.
Appellants spokesman Jonathon Dodd told Inspector Harold Stevens there was a country-wide crisis in the delivery of housing affecting people on a daily basis; The country needed 300,000 homes, 100,000 of which must be “affordable.”
He said:
4,071 homes are needed in Waverley over the next five years in order to accommodate this immediate and urgent crisis – and plannng permissions must be granted NOW! It is lamentable that here in Waverley over the next 5/6 years the delivery of housing will only be satisfied by appeals such as this – by Government Inspectors. Waverley needs 11,000- homes by 2032 – 590 p.a.”
The delivery of Waverley’s delayed Local Plan had relied upon appeal decisions, and the delayed Local Plan Part 2 was a strategy that relied almost entirely upon Dunsfold Aerodrome that was nowhere near deliverable and g0ing under new ownership.
When the Inspector asked Waverley’s planning representative if she could enlighten him on the Dunsfold position and its owner, she said…
“I am not allowed to say who it is. But we have e-mails from a man called Tom who had been in talks with the council’s planners.”
Thakeham’s man revealed the possible buyer as Columbia Threadneedle, who, he said had ” not yet taken the keys” to Dunsfold but it was expected that despite Waverley’s SPD (Strategic Planning Document) – now out to public consultation – the new owner may have its ideas for the site. This requires new planning applications to be negotiated and consents given. He cast doubt that the site would deliver homes in the five years. It was also quite likely the owners would seek to negotiate a higher number of homes than the previous incumbent.
Note: Columbia Threadneedle offered £250m for the largest brownfield site in the borough but is currently carrying out extensive contamination tests, so it remains in the ownership of Trinity College Cambridge. Around 2,600 homes are earmarked for the Dunsfold Garden Village site. Some believe there will in future be many more.
Thakeham claimed Waverley had artificially skewed the data on its five-year housing supply by including 113 Class C homes. (old person homes), which had just sneaked it over the 5-year housing land supply. Many other permissions (152) + another 89 had expired or were undeliverable. He cast doubts on many more.
Last week Farnham Cllr David Beaman asked Waverley Executive’s planning portfolio holder Cllr Andy Macleod to confirm he was confident that the council’s claim of having an adequate housing supply was robust enough. “Without any reasonable doubt, ” so the authority could make it stand up at imminent appeals.
“Because if it doesn’t we will all look rather silly.”
Mr Dodds said that Waverley’s mindset was to delay housing delivery in the borough – leaving the Inspectorate as the provider for granting planning consents on Appeal.
“And,” he warned, “this trend is set to continue with this Appeal!
The appellants would deliver superb housing and demolish the council’s five reasons for refusal.
He continued by shredding one after another a string of proposed housing developments named in the council’s five year-housing supply schedule, which he described as – “certainly not the best.”
He claimed that sites included in Waverley’s current 5-year housing supply document was littered with inaccuracies and included homes that were neither deliverable, realistic or achievable. Including 242 homes for which permission had expired and repeatedly challenging the robustness of much of its data.
It is extremely optomistic and highly unrealistic.”
The validity of sites questioned included Dunsfold Park; two sites in Haslemere; Milford Golf Course; Cranleigh Brick & Tile; Cranleigh High Street; Weyhill Haslemere; Sites in Chiddingfold at Meadow Nurseries West & East; Centrum Business Park in Farnham; Barons Toyota Garage in Hindhead; The Old Grove, Hindhead and more.
Said Mr Dodds:
“My position on Waverley’s five-year housing supply is 3.76 years! There are a number of sites that easily fail the test and this is very serious. It is completely untenable for the council to say it has a 5YHS with the inclusion of Dunsfold Park – it is quite unreasonable.”
The Inspector said there were many unanswered questions on the housing numbers.
I want an up-to-date position on this borough’s housing land supply to take away by the end of this Inquiry and questions answered during this Inquiry, whether you agree with one another or not.”
The Inquiry continues, including visits by the Inspector to various other important sites.
