THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD FROM THE SORRY ADVERTISER

Featured

 

With delicious irony, in a recent story in the Sorry Advertiser a headline read HOMES NEEDED BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ROADS? alongside a photograph of The Wintershall Estate actors who brought Guildford High Street to a juddering halt as they performed The Passion Plays on Tunsgate over the Easter weekend.

Relegated to page 13 – unlucky for some! – was the Sorry Ad’s Round-up of reactions to Dunsfold news. Bob Lies, chairman of Protect our little corner of Waverley, opined: ‘While more housing is needed it should be put in the right place and Dunsfold clearly is not the right place with its totally inadequate infrastructure.’

WHAT is that man on? The only thing that is clear about this whole sorry saga is that Bob Lies and his campaigning cohorts consider the largest brownfield site in the borough, with direct access onto an A-road – moreover an A-road that doesn’t even appear in the top 10 busiest A-roads in the county! – ‘clearly is not the right place’. The man and his minions are barking! The only people that deem Dunsfold Park ‘not the right place’ are some, and it is only SOME, residents of Alfold and Dunsfold, who don’t want their rural idyl polluted by  people who, once the new village is built, will – in the words of Dunsfold Park’s QC, ‘Live more sustainably than they themselves do.’ What a nincompoop. We’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating, Mr Lies would do well to take a leaf out of the late Sir Denis Thatcher’s book:

BETTER TO REMAIN SILENT AND BE THOUGHT A FOOL THAN TO SPEAK OUT AND REMOVE ALL DOUBT!

While Mr Lies was saying, ‘We now trust the local authority and the site owner to work closely and constructively with the local community to ensure the adverse impacts of the development are minimised ‘ his legal beavers were preparing to challenge the Local Plan. ...’ To the best of our knowledge Dunsfold Park has spent the past 15-odd years trying to work with the local community, and at every turn, they have been snubbed and vilified by Mr Lies and his predecessors, Stop Dunsfold Park New Town.

In the Bramley Babes Update, published on the same day as the Sorry Ad, it said:‘Despite all of our best efforts, this is not the decision we were hoping for. Should have added: we’re not giving up…yet!

We know from our Bramley correspondent that year after year tickets for Top Gear were requested and generously donated by Dunsfold Park to the village fete and Bramley and other Infants School, helping to boost their coffers!  What price a little gratitude?

Meanwhile, MP Moaning Milton, who made no secret of her opposition to Dunsfold Park and, in cahoots with fellow MP Jeremy S-Hunt, are guilty of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds council tax payers money making Waverley Borough Council jump through hoops in its bid  to meet the housing quotas dictated by their Conservative Government, now has the nerve to pontificate:

‘Now that the Planning Inspector has approved the building at Dunsfold, it is absolutely essential that every possible step is taken to fund and provide the supporting infrastructure we need. This will be critical during the construction period. I will, therefore, pursue every possible mitigating measure to help local residents in Alfold and Cranleigh.’

What a pity Moaning Milton didn’t give some thought to the millions of pounds that could have been spent on local infrastructure if the Dunsfold Developer hadn’t had to fight, tooth-and-nail, her dirty little behind-the-scenes shenanigans. We wouldn’t go knocking at the Dunsfold Developer’s door if we were you, Moaning Milton!  You’re the last person likely to persuade the DD  to support any initiative you’re spearheading. From what we’ve heard from some of the Dunsfold businesses.

 You won’t be invited to break ground, you’ve spent far too much time breaking wind!

Meanwhile, there’s a little light relief on the Sorry Ad’s Letters Page:

H Alexander of the Residents Greenbelt Group, claims that ‘buy-to-let landlords have effectively bought every property built since 1985′ and that ‘Solving the housing crisis will not be achieved by destroying the countryside but by sensible policies such as reversing buy-to-let so as to bring those 5 million properties into occupier-ownership.’ Watch out Jeremy S-Hunt – AKA Peter Rachman of Southampton – Comrade Alexander has your buy-to-let portfolio in his sights!

• Meanwhile, Paul Woodhams, of Merrow, is ‘appalled at the decision to allow 1,800 homes to be built on Dunsfold Park. No thought has been given to the problems of the extra traffic along the A281.’ Durrrhhh! Where have you been, Mr Woodhams? One of the reasons the application was consented is due to the proposed mitigation measures improving the traffic problems on the A281. The learned gentleman goes on to say that he ‘suppose[s] our local Members of Parliament will be silent on these plans ...’ If only! Again, where have you been? Moaning Milton has been banging on about nothing but for years!!!

Disgusted of Woodland Avenue demands to know, ‘What makes it OK now when it hasn’t been viable before?’ Does anyone bother to read the paperwork? The Planning Inspector and the Secretary of State in their respective report and decision letter were at great pains to explain what makes it OK now when it hasn’t been viable before! Get with the programme Mr Baldock! Try reading the report then you won’t make a fool of yourself asking daft questions that everyone else knows the answer to, even if they don’t care to admit it because it’s such a very inconvenient truth that Dunsfold Park will make the A281 less congested if and when it’s built than the road would be if it isn’t built!

Seriously, folks, no one minds you having your say – after all, it was still a free country last time we looked – just! – but if you’re going to pontificate, at least take the time to do your homework, read the paperwork and try to get your heads around the facts rather than the drivel that has been propagated by the likes of Bob Lies – the clue’s in his sobriquet!

 

A Guildford to Horsham railway line won’t​ re-open if Bramley residents have anything to do with it.

Featured

Now that The Rutland Group has been given the go-ahead to build 1,800 homes, (and another 800 in the Local Plan) at Dunsfold Aerodrome some of the Eastern villages are calling for the railway line to be re-opened.

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 21.10.52.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-21 at 21.11.05.pngGovernment plans could see the old Guildford to Horsham railway line reopened after a new transport strategy was announced recently.  

Following years of debate on whether the rail route should be revived, Transport Secretary  Chris Grayling’s latest scheme has paved the way for potential progress.  

Fresh proposals mean councils can now recommend that previously culled stations be brought back to life.

Mr Grayling said plans to expand the network were made in order to aid housing growth and produce more jobs across Britain. So he must mean the Guildford to Horsham line through Cranleigh?

NO SURPRISE – THERE THEN!

Presumably, Bramley residents whose homes back onto the route of the canal are happy to have their des res’s down by the riverside! But not on the other side of the tracks?

Here’s why Dunsfold Aerodrome was given lift-off​ by the Government!

Featured

Secretary of State for The Environment & Communities Sajid Javid has GRANTED Dunsfold Airport and the Rutland Group permission to build a new settlement.

Yesterday’s post-D-Day for Dunsfold! But don’t hold your breath!

The future of BAe’s former home is secure! Following years of controversy – numerous planning applications; two major planning appeals and two planning inquiries, costing the applicants and Waverley taxpayers many millions of pounds! 

However, it is Cranleigh New Town, that has now been dealt a double whammy!

Unprecedented Development within a once peaceful rural village – and now without!

dunsfold_granted

As for your contribution Captain SHunt to the huge delays and waste of the taxpayer’s money – you can console residents over here in Farnham by telling them it is NO COINCIDENCE that three major FARNHAM planning appeals were dismissed by Government Inspectors in the same week as the Dunsfold decision! 

 

Protect Our Waverley; MP’s Jeremy SHunt and Matron Anne Milton; may it forever be upon your heads for the part you played in the blow that you have dealt the village Waverley councillors have repeatedly described  as – “poor old Cranleigh.”
This is what your delaying tactics have contributed to! Cranleigh_banner2

Here are some of the reasons why The Secretary of State gave his consent to DP. 

The provision accords with the Local Plan which he said – is no longer out-of-date.

  • The borough’s housing situation has changed “massively.” 
  • Waverley must now take some of Woking’s unmet need!
  • The location, (airfield) can no longer be considered inherently unsuitable.
  • He supports the further development of 2,600 homes to relieve the pressure on the borough’s greenfield sites.
  • Dunsfold Aerodrome will be a “key contributor to Waverley’s housing need for affordable housing.”
  • Waverley’s affordable housing need is “ACUTE!”
  • New employment will be provided to an existing business park.
  • The Government believes the site “might” provide for 1,000 new jobs giving a huge economic benefit to the borough.
  • The Jigsaw School for the Autistic will be able to expand into new premises.
  • And.. a new 2 form primary school provided.
  • Traffic on the A281 will perform better when the optimum performance settings are operated on the traffic systems.
  • There will be no significant impact on the highway network from heavy vehicles.
  • No impact on the countryside due to the current use of the site as both a business park and an operational aerodrome. He said: ‘The sensitivity of the landscape character is not high, and “the intactness of the landscape was lost when the aerodrome was created and has little scenic quality.’
  • The small amount of ancient woodland to be sacrificed was of poor quality Sycamore trees, and the environment would benefit in the future.
  • There are practical solutions to ensure foul sewage and surface water drainage are dealt with appropriately.
  • There was no harm to the heritage assets.

This is a comprehensive defeat of the objectors! Who he said were “hypocritical”

This paragraph is taken from the Secretary of State’s Report.

Screen Shot 2018-03-29 at 20.15.00.png

There are a few  people who claimed Dunsfold would receive consent over their dead bodies! One is now spinning in their grave, others may soon follow! No names, no pack drill – as we say in the Army!

D-Day for Dunsfold! But don’t hold your breath!

Featured

Remember – You heard it here first!

dunsfold_granted.jpg

It’s only taken a mere 16 years for the Flying Scot to learn today that his ambitious plans to turn  Dunsfold Aerodrome into an eco-village fit for the 21st century, complete with 1800 homes, a primary school, GP surgery and all the essential elements required to support day-to-day living has – at very long last – been consented.  And, by no less a personage than Sajid Javid the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

Some would argue that amidst the growing hullabaloo about a lack of affordable housing.  The Tories’ alleged commitment to riding roughshod over the concerns of NIMBY residents and Councils’ in their determination to show they care – really, REALLY care! – about the housing crisis, there was no way they could afford to turn this application down but, by God, they’ve had a bloody good try!

Mistress Anne Milton, MP for Guildford, has made no bones about her opposition to the scheme from the get-go and – despite her colleague Dominic Raab’s call for ‘more affordable homes’ to ‘restore the dream of homeownership.’ She openly boasted how she’d whipped S of S  Javid into calling in the planning application in the hope he would overturn Waverley Council’s decision in December 2016 to grant consent.

 Rumour has it, deep in the burrow of the Burys, that Council Leader, Julia Potts, was so incensed at Mistress Milton’s unwarranted interference, that the two fell out BIG time!

A week to the day  Jeremy Hunt, MP for South West Surrey was outed by The Sun as a budding buy-to-let property-mogul – with more than a casual interest in keeping would-be homeowners tied into the rental market. Now – Javid, it would seem, has finally grown a pair and told his erstwhile colleagues they not only need to toe the party line but be seen to toe the party line in their own constituencies!

But a word of caution to the Flying Scot before he starts doing the Highland Fling:

Perhaps he should ask himself will his joy be short-lived? Remember …back in December 2016, when Your Waverley granted consent and, only weeks later, defeat was snatched from the jaws of victory, when, at Annie’s and SHunt’s behest, (S of S) Javid ruled he would have the final say on Dunsfold Park’s future?

Waverley Web has no doubt as we write, Protect our little Corner of Awfold, Duncefold, Ker-Chingfold and Where-Has–All-the-Traffic-Combe-From is dusting off its begging bowls and door-stepping its supporters, asking them to dig deep – just one more time! WHY? To fund the final leg of its marathon act of NIMBYISM, to launch a Judicial Review of both the Dunsfold Park decision and the Local Plan!

Surely not, we hear you say! Why not?

 Because they can! 

With cheer-leader-in-chief’s  Mistress Milton’s backing, and a bit of behind the bikesheds manoeuvring from Jeremy Shunt-All-the-Houses elsewhere, these suburban terrorists – yes, we did say suburban!  This is Surrey, an extension of Greater London, not deepest-darkest-Dorset – have, for in excess of 10 long years, waged a very successful campaign to deny the children and grandchildren of their less-well-off neighbours any opportunity of getting a foothold on the property ladder within spitting distance of Awfold, Duncefold, Ker-Chingfold, etc and anywhere in between.

After all, it’s only 18 years since BAE Systems vacated Dunsfold Aerodrome … so what’s the hurry to make a decision about its future? We need to consult, consult, and CONSULT… with the dormouse (AKA Sarah Sullivan), the Bat (AKA Councillor Betty Ames), the Bullfrogs (AKA Councillor Betty Ames and the Leader of PoW, Bob Lees) not to mention Uncle Tom Cobbley (AKA Squire Orange) …  get the picture?

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, China plans to build 66 new airports in the next five years. And we wonder why we lost an Empire and are a declining world power … Go figure!

Isn’t it time PoW and the ilk stopped the monotonous moaning, got over themselves and embraced Sajid Javid’s decision and, in the words of the Beetles: [Just] let it be …

Let it be, let it be, let it be, yeah let it be.
Whisper words of wisdom
Let it be

Interesting in this Press Release to concentrate on the often overlooked employment aspects!

Screen Shot 2018-03-29 at 14.07.28.png

If, after this decision,​ Dunsfold Aerodrome isn’t passed – we want to know who is paying the Piper?

Featured

Here’s a decision announced today by the Secretary of State concerning development in the Green Belt in our neighbouring borough!

If Dunsfold Aerodrome – the largest brownfield site in Waverley isn’t given the go-ahead by the Secretary of State- it will be a travesty!

Because the man at the top has given the go-ahead to a large development in Effingham, (see below)  despite Guildford Borough Council’s refusal!

  • He admits it represents inappropriate development in the Greenbelt.
  • He admits the development will inevitably result in a very significant degree of reduction to its openness.
  • Admits it conflicts with the Effingham Neighbourhood Plan as the site is outside the settlement.
  • Admits it is on protected green space.

But, of course, as there is a substantial bung offered by developers for a new school to replace a Surrey County Council School which is deemed “not fit for purpose” – then it’s OK! Isn’t it?

NO WONDER SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL WANT TO CLOSE GREEN OAK PRIMARY SCHOOL IN GODALMING!! Let’s all help save Green Oak Primary School, in Godalming?

Perhaps the Government is just waiting for a developer to come along and build Surrey County Council another new school? Together with a few hundred houses?

Screen Shot 2018-03-28 at 17.09.36.png

Will Dunsfold Aerodrome become home to 6,000 – yes really, six thousand, new homes?

Featured

Cranleigh_banner2.jpg

That’s what the Chairman of Cranleigh Civic Society predicted when he urged its members to be vigilant and sign up to fight for Cranleigh through the organisation he now leads. 

Although the CCS chairman claimed that consent had already been granted for 1,800 homes  WW believes he meant that Waverley planners had granted consent.  A final decision by the Secretary of State for Communities is expected next week  29th March. The Local Plan includes a figure of 2,600.

Over here in Farnham, we learned from our Cranleigh followers that concern is growing for the new town that nestles in the Surrey Hills! So much so, that with 1,357  homes already consented,  there are fears that with many more to come, both there, and in the surrounding villages, the local infrastructure will not cope!

CRANLEIGH”S RECENT FLOOD FORUM NEWS.

MP Anne Milton and her Flood Forum team which including representatives from Thames Water, Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council responded to questions which had been sent to her in advance, including those from the Cranleigh Civic Society. She said she, and concerned villagers,  now wanted some answers.

She urged the public to look at Cranleigh Parish Council’s website for news. http://www.cranleighpc.org/_VirDir/CoreContents/News/Display.aspx?id=11210

Around 60 people, including a handful of borough/or parish councillors heard from the ‘experts’ of any progress made since the last meeting.

Present: The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP (Chair); Waverley Borough Council (WBC): William Gibb, Planning Enforcement; Nick Laker, Engineer; Beverley Bell, Clerk, Cranleigh Parish Council; Sarah Coleby, Office of Anne Milton MP; Nishad Sowky, Thames Water; Paul Hudson, Environment Agency (EA);  Tor Peebles, Surrey County Council (SCC); Parish Councillors –  Brian Freeston; Angela Richardson; and borough councillor Patricia Ellis.

MISCONNECTIONS TO THE MAINS

Nishad Sowky, Thames Water said this was an ongoing battle and his organisation relied heavily upon intelligence provided by the public.   A specialist engineer had been appointed and action planned. However, he stressed, TW couldn’t enforce any action required only Waverley Borough Council was permitted to do this. It was suggested homeowners should be required to provide evidence of approval if it was believed illegal connections had been made. 

It was revealed that Cranleigh’s foul sewer was inundated with surface water or ingress from groundwater.  With more housing, it was suggested that 12 times dry weather flow may be required, and a total upgrade was required to accommodate both current housing and the large-scale development now approved.

Database:

Cllr Townsend had previously requested a hotspot database be provided as she believed that residents local knowledge was crucial in identifying problems. These should be reported to the Parish Council, in addition to the relevant agencies, e.g. Thames Water/WBC’s Environmental Health/Environment Agency as appropriate.

Cranleigh Waters:  Thames Water confirmed that the wet weather flow is 10 times the dry weather flow – whereas tank capacity is 6 times dry weather flow.

PLANNING

Waverley planners reported that the Local Plan includes a general policy on avoiding pollution and included measures for mitigating flooding.  

It was stressed that flooding occurred less when the EA maintained the river, and that annual maintenance was vital.  The importance of Riparian owners honouring their responsibilities was stressed, but the EA should move any obstructions whenever a  specific flood risk existed.

Commenting on a decision made by Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee described as ‘awful’ by the CCS  for 55 homes on a flood plain in Elmbridge Road, where Thakeham Homes scheme for  55 homes was granted despite huge local opposition,  Tor Peebles (SCC) suggested that Waverley councillors who granted such schemes would benefit from improved knowledge of drainage issues! He believed councillors would benefit from extra training.

William Gibb, Planning Enforcement Waverley, suggested that some junior planning officers also lacked sufficient knowledge of drainage issues.

Mr Peebles also reiterated his claim that the National Standard for Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) were not fit for purpose and gave as an example of a development on the river Test in Hampshire, where (SUDS) provided for new properties had now flooded! After receiving his letter on SUDS standards, the MP said she would take his concerns to a Government Minister.

LOCAL ISSUES

Cranleigh Waters: Thames Water confirmed it had written to the owner of West Cranleigh Nurseries who, it is alleged, had illegally dredged the river. He said Waverley planners were aware of the breach and conditions would be imposed when its detailed planning application for the first phase of 265 homes was considered!

 Planning Applications: The Cranleigh Society remained concerned about developments granted planning permission with no apparent objection by the EA, SCC or Thames Water, particularly the Thakeham Homes development.

Residents said it was ‘a disgrace’ that planners and the EA preferred to accept a developers evidence over anecdotal and photographic evidence provided by residents.  Work was carried out by Adrian Clarke (Cranleigh Society) and Doug Hill (SCC) in 2015 to map the floodplain, including collecting and providing photographic evidence. They claimed this had not been properly considered and taken into account by SCC as the lead Flood Authority.

The MP said she would seek a meeting with Thakeham Homes and Cranleigh representatives. 

DRINKING WATER CONCERNS

Thames Water claimed blue asbestos found in Cranleigh’s pipes were not a danger to public health. as there was a very low concentration. However, 3.38 km of water pipes would be replaced. This includes Mapledrakes Road, Godalming Road; Satchel Court Road; Barhatch Lane, Sapte Close, and Cromwell Road.

It was pointed out to the TW representative that most of the roads mentioned weren’t actually in Cranleigh but in other towns and villages including Alfold, Godalming and Ewhurst! And… if only 3.8 km of pipework was being replaced… this was a very small proportion of the work required! 

The meeting heard that a response from The World Health Organisation through The Drinking Water Inspectorate (Sue Pennison) was still awaited. Residents commented that New Zealand and Australia were not waiting for the WHO’s decision,  but had begun a huge replacement programme! 

 

Build on all brownfield sites across the country other than ​Dunsfold!

Featured

The (Local CPRE has repeatedly said it is against ANY development at Dunsfold Aerodrome. 

However, here is its latest country-wide view on where homes should be built first!

 

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 10.20.52.pngScreen Shot 2018-02-15 at 10.21.13.png

Reply-To: CPRE Campaigns <campaigns@cpre.org.uk>All

Leading Tory says Farnham appeals will be rejected? But a big question mark hangs over whether or not POW will seek a judicial review!

Featured

Confidence voiced that appeals will be rejected

WAVERLEY’S new portfolio holder for planning has expressed confidence Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan will “kill” five upcoming appeals for more than 500 homes in the town area, despite councillors agreeing Waverley’s new higher housing target this week.

Christopher Storey, the Tory councillor for Weybourne and Badshot Lea, took over the reigns as Waverley’s executive member for planning from Brian Adams this month and has been immediately thrown in the deep end – presiding over key landmarks in the development of the borough’s Local Plan and Farnham’s Brightwells redevelopment.

Last week Waverley invited members of the press to a briefing on the Local Plan, just weeks after a government planning inspector declared Waverley’s planning blueprint “sound” subject to a series of major modifications including raising the borough’s housing target to 590 homes per year.

This includes an additional allocation of 450 homes in Farnham, on top of the 2,330 already proposed over the plan period up to 2032, forcing an early review of Farnham’s own Neighbourhood Plan, adopted just last July, to find new housing sites.

Responding, architect of the town plan, town council leader Carole Cockburn told the Farnham Herald the inspector’s decision represented a “cruel blow” to the community-led planning document and the 10,000-plus people who voted for the plan in a referendum last April. 

However, Mr Storey took a different stance to Mrs Cockburn, echoing inspector Jonathan Bore’s comments that: These changes [to the Local Plan] will not diminish the importance or relevance of the work carried out to produce the Neighbourhood Plan, which will remain part of the statutory development plan.”

Addressing specifically five pending appeals for more than 500 homes spread across sites in Waverley Lane, Monkton Lane, Lower Weybourne Lane, Folly Hill and behind Farnham Park Hotel in Hale Road, Mr Storey added: “I am very confident that the Neighbourhood Plan and the Local Plan will kill all five of those.”

His comments came just a day before 11th-hour protests failed to force a rethink last Tuesday, and the new higher housing target of building 590 homes a year in 14 years was agreed by Waverley Borough Council.

Following a special executive meeting at 5pm, 41 members of the full council meeting at 7pm voted in favour of the inspector’s changes to part one of Waverley’s local plan in order to speed up its adoption and “take back control” from speculative property developers.

Farnham Residents opposition leader Jerry Hyman was a lone objector, again arguing there was insufficient evidence for the mitigation measures proposed to protect the borough’s Special Protection Areas, while councillors Andy MacLeod (Farnham Residents), Kevin Deanus (Alfold, Tory) and Paul Follows (Godalming, Lib Dem) abstained.

Responding to a last-minute challenge by Protect Our Waverley (POW) campaign that last wek’s  decision was unlawful, because the council had potentially breached its constitution by holding the local plan meetings too close together, Waverley leader Julia Potts (Upper Hale, Tory) said it would be “very disappointing” if POW pursued its challenge.

“Waverley can proceed provided it is aware of the risk of challenge,” she said.

POW had previously called on all borough councillors to defer a decision on whether to approve the modified local plan, until the appeal decision on whether 1,800 houses can be built at Dunsfold Park – which has been allocated 2,600 new homes in the local plan. The verdict is due by March 31.

Taken from the Farnham Herald.

However, nobody dares to mention what if… The Dunsfold Aerodrome application is refused by the Secretary of State!

Result: One great big black hole in the Local Plan and one great big green hole in the borough of Waverley?

 

 

Is someone going to ask the Pope if they​ should be allowed to build at Dunsfold?

AFTER ALL, THEY’VE ASKED EVERYBODY ELSE!

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER …

We’ve all heard the old adage ‘he thinks all his Christmases have come at once’! If the Secretary of State doesn’t pull his finger out of the proverbial, that could be the verdict for the Flying Scotsman – always assuming, that is, Sajid Javid makes a positive decision when he finally gets around to making it!

Here at the Waverley Web we wonder –  is there anyone who hasn’t commented?

Our moles – both within Waverley Borough Council and PoW (and, no, the PoW mole doesn’t know s/he’s a mole, s/he’s just too trusting of his / her intimates!) – that the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government has written, this week, to ‘Your Waverley’  – copies to every Tom, Dick & Harriet who have expressed a passing interest in the decision – except of course, His Holiness.

 Saying: “The Secretary of State is considering the report of the Inspector, Philip Major who held a public local inquiry from 18 July 2017 into the [Dunsfold Park] planning application … [and he] takes the view that the recently published Report on the Examination of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1 and the associated Final Schedule of Main Modifications include new information which may be material to the application before him.” The upshot being that “The Secretary of State considers that a period of two weeks to submit representations is reasonable in the circumstances of this case” and arising from that he “considers that he will not be in a position to reach a decision on the application by 15 March, as previously notified … he will now issue his decision on or before 31 March 2018.”

How long does it take one man and his army to make a decision that’s as plain as the nose on his face?! It’s like pulling teeth trying to get a decision out of the Ministry of Housing! No wonder there’s a chronic shortage of housing in this country if they keep putting off making a decision.

 In other democratic countries, the application would have been issued in half the time and  1,800 houses would have been built and occupied! But here in the UK, where every mouse, bat, and bullfrog has to be consulted –  – it’s  taken 10 years and counting … so what’s another three months here and two weeks there …?

We’ve heard that PoW is having a pow-wow as we type, taking “the opportunity to submit further written representations ”because it “affects the case [they] put to the Inspector at the inquiry.”

We can just see it now, winging its way over the ether:

Dear Mr. Jewell

Inspector Jonathan Bore has surprised no-one – least of all us! – by the conclusions reached in his report on the Waverley Local Plan Part 1; he has not wavered (no pun intended!) from the position he took during the Public Examination last summer when he unjustifiably ‘talked up’ the housing need target to the unsustainable level of 590 dwellings per year. Waverley Borough Council, to their detriment and shame, did not challenge that at the time or subsequently, and the result is a Plan which blights every part of the Borough but especially our corner of it.

Once again, local opinion has been ridden roughshod over and ignored. Neighbourhood Plans seem to count for nothing and the most unsustainable site for development, Dunsfold Aerodrome, has been elevated to almost ‘holy grail’ status by Mr. Bore. The report, which in its own words correctly states that it is strategic, has none the less placed a disproportionate reliance on this single, remote site for delivery of the unsustainable quantity of homes to be built in the Borough over the Plan period.

Mr. Bore talks at length about his own assessment of the environmental and transport credentials of Dunsfold Aerodrome, without the benefit of the full evidence properly being considered in the separate Call In Inquiry, the conclusion of which was not expected to be announced by the Secretary of State until 15th March. At the same time, Waverley Borough Council has proposed handling a ‘free gift’ worth between £10m and £16m to the owners of Dunsfold Aerodrome by exempting them from all-important Community Infrastructure Levy – money the whole borough desperately needs and would benefit from.

POW believes the residents of Waverley – and especially the residents of Awfold and Duncefold – deserve better!

Yours sincerely 

Bob Lies
Chairman of the Campaign

Protect our Waverley Campaign
… is a group formed to campaign against the development of Dunsfold Park New Town on the Dunsfold Airfield and other un-sustainable planning applications throughout the Borough of Waverley – not that we can be bothered to do or say anything about applications in the rest of the Borough because we only really, truly, madly, deeply care about Awfold, Duncefold, Ker-Chiddingfold and Where-Has-All-the-Traffic-Come-From… Horsham? But we’ve been told it’s not PC to let the people of Cranleigh, Godalming, and Farnham think we don’t give a Donald Duck about them!

Now, dear readers, once you’ve picked yourself up off the floor, where you’ve no doubt been rolling,  and wiped the tears from your eyes, we’ll break it to you gently … we didn’t make that letter up – well, OK, we might have used a touch of poetic licence describing POW and its supporters, but the rest is a reproduction its latest Press Release, written in a fit of pique when Inspector Bore’s Report was published.

Seriously, folks, we couldn’t have made that up if we’d tried. Yeah, we’re tongue in cheek and on a good day we can be funny but that was hysterical … all the more so because they actually believe their own PR! And… if they don’t get their own way they will…do what Violet Elizabeth Bob did and they will…

Oh dear! Is Protect Our Little Corner of Waverley having a nervous breakdown?

With depressing predictability, Protect our Little Corner of Waverley has reacted with fury to Inspector Jonathan Bore’s conclusion that Dunsfold Aerodrome is Waverley’s best hope of meeting its housing need. It is his view that Dunsfold is a strategic site and will lessen the need to concrete over our green fields creating unnecessary and unwanted over-expansion of the borough’s three main towns, Cranleigh, Godalming and Farnham.

A disparaging Press Release issued on Tuesday makes a number of choice remarks from which we have cherry-picked the best to save those of you who are heartily sick of reading PoW’s self-centered, let’s protect the villages of Awfold, Duncfold, You-have-to-be-Kiddingfold, and Where-Has-all-the-traffic-combe-from and bugger Cranleigh, Godalawfulming, and the borough’s largest town of Farnham that has now become a brownfield site because ‘Your Waverley’ has thrown so much sh*t at it!

How Now Says POW?

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 12.15.17

Violet Elizabeth ‘Bob (Lees)  – I’ll scream and I’ll scream til I’m sick!

‘Inspector Jonathan Bore has surprised no-one …’

‘… he unjustifiably ‘talked up’ the housing need target to the unsustainable level of 590 dwellings per year.’

‘Once again, local opinion has been ridden roughshod over and ignored … and the most unsustainable site for development, Dunsfold Aerodrome, has been elevated to ‘holy grail’ status by Mr. Bore.’

‘POW believes the residents of Waverley deserve better.’

Oh no, they don’t! What they really believe is the residents of the aforementioned Awfold, Duncfold, You-have-to-be-Kiddingfold, and Where-Has-all-the-traffic-combe-from deserve better! They don’t give a damn about the rest of the borough as long as their own backyards are protected!

Never mind that Cranleigh already has 1,300 homes consented, more in the pipeline and that Farnham is already grid-locked!

Where was POw when Waverley Planners was handing out planning consents on greenfields like Smarties? Nowhere! That’s where. They were too busy handing round the begging bowl to build a war chest to fight the Dunsfold Developer and fill Mistress Milton and Jeremy Shunt’s coffers in order to ensure they did their dirty work in the corridors of power, thus ensuring the application was called in.

And… exactly what good has that done? None whatsoever, quite the reverse in fact. It led to Waverley Borough Council having to spend a shed-load of money it could ill afford to defend their position at Public Inquiry and Betty Boop (the woman formerly known as Liz the Biz) running around like a headless chicken, rubber stamping planning permissions faster than developers could print them off! So frit was BB that housing at Dunsfold was going to disappear, like Scotch Mist, that she granted consents to the Berkeley Bunnies and the Lettuce King to build over 800 houses in Cranleigh on land that everyone knows – floods!

Waverley Web believes the residents of Cranleigh deserve better, and so do our residents here in Farnham.

PS. For those of you who can stomach POW’s crocodile tears for the residents of Waverley, herewith a link to their latest Huffing and Puffing that even the Flying Scotsman couldn’t match!

View: POW Local Plan Press Release