Tag: Dunsfold Park

Just a little thought on Woking’s unmet need straight from our sun lounger?

Screen Shot 2018-08-06 at 09.51.16.png

There’s nothing like sitting on a sun lounger sipping a Pink Gin listening to the waves lapping against the rocks to get the old brain cells working is there?

Here’s a thought for you which we haven’t seen expressed anywhere to date but I think it is a point which could do with an airing.

Dunsfold Aerodrome was in the latest version of the local plan right from the start, wasn’t it? So it has been tested and consulted on at every stage.

dunsfold_granted

When the Woking unmet need figures were introduced and then confirmed by the Inspector in 2017 Waverley’s answer was to add numbers TO THE REST OF THE BOROUGH including Farnham. See MM3 on page 7 below.

So in the unlikely scenario that CPRE wins its challenge to the local plan on the Woking unmet need point, people should be asking themselves why should it be Dunsfold Aerodrome that gets thrown into doubt and removed from the local plan (the PoW case) and not all the additional houses which were bolted onto Farnham (and undermined their neighbourhood plan if you remember) and Cranleigh and various other places including some in the Green Belt?

In this case, it should really be “last in, first out”

Just a thought? Back home soon when we will reveal all the countries reading the Waverley Web!

You can read it for yourself here:

Schedule of Main Modifications

Double Whoopee another shedload of our money goes down the pan!

 

waverleyplansdowntoilet.jpg
Here’s the taxpayer’s money about to be flushed away…again!

To misquote Oliver Hardy:

Screen Shot 2018-06-13 at 17.49.08.png

The Honourable Mr. Justice Holgate has ordered that in the matter of applications for Planning Statutory Review:

1. POW Campaign Ltd – v- Waverley Borough Council and Dunsfold Airport Ltd
2. CPRE Surrey -v- Waverley Borough Council
3. POW Campaign Ltd -v- Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government

The three applications be consolidated and heard together, at an oral hearing, as soon as possible after 25 June 2018 because he considers this to be the most efficient way of dealing with the applications.

The Judge has noted that there is considerable overlap in the legal arguments raised in the claims by POW and CPRE and a good deal of the factual and policy context is common to all three claims. He has also decreed that one Judge should hear all of the matters at the permission stage and one Judge should also hold any substantive hearing in relation to any claims granted permission to proceed. And, whether the claims are consolidated or not, the hearings must take place in the same hearing window to avoid inefficient use of judicial resources.

Mr. Justice Holgate concludes by saying priority must be given in the list of the applications to the availability of a Judge and not to the availability of any counsel presently instructed. Which, in short, means The Stinch, Rumpole and Wayne Beglan, who acted on behalf of POW, the Dunsfold Developer, and Waverley Borough Council respectively, may not star in the blockbusting sequel. It’s rather like a film studio killing off the leading man when he tries to up his fee for the sequel!

It remains to be seen if those bit-part-players, Charles William Orange Esq (AKA OJ) and Nik Pidgeon (AKA Not-in-my-Columbier), will rock up for the latest round.

However, we have heard from one of the herd at Protect Our Waverley that they are JUBILANT and cannot wait to get their days/weeks/ in court.

As the two above are among the key architects of PoW & the Parishes’ case against the Dunsfold Developer one would expect them to be preening in front row seats but neither have been seen in public since they were outed, around the time of the Dunsfold Inquiry, as Nimby Developers who, having spent years parking their concrete mixers in other peoples’ backyards, now want to move in on their own patch and dig up the village greens of Awfold and Hascombe in preference to seeing the brownfields of Dunsfold Airfield developed. KERCHING!

Reading Mr Justice Holgate’s direction, whilst sipping a glass or two of Silent Pool’s excellent G&T, we at Waverley Web, found ourselves re-visiting the words of that elder statesman of the three barristers at the recent Inquiry into Dunsfold Park, Christopher Katkowski QC, AKA Rumpole: “The very fact that the Rule 6 Parties [otherwise known as POW & the Parishes] speak in such terms shows what the planning system has to grapple with and face down here!”

We can only hope that the High Court Judge on whose bench these cases land will be up to grappling with and tackling the Nimbyism which has polluted the waters of Waverley.

But – and purely in the interests of fairness, you understand – we must give equal airtime to The Stinch, on behalf of POW and the Parishes, whom we awarded Quote of the Day on the first day of the Dunsfold Inquiry, when he announced, in suitably sombre tones…

Screen Shot 2018-06-13 at 17.55.41

 

If only! How most of us wish that were true. All we do know is that, despite those famous first words from The Stinch, Waverley taxpayers are looking down the barrel of yet another review of the Dunsfold decision and the Local Plan!

 In company with the Brexit Remoaners, POW and the Parishes won’t take NO for an answer – they’re just going to keep on pushing this ball uphill and down dale until someone somewhere, anyone anywhere, agrees with them and overturns the decision to build on the biggest brownfield site in the borough and allows ‘Your Waverley’ to continue concreting over the countryside.

And the Government has the cheek to wonder why developers aren’t building enough houses quickly enough … and why they are so expensive!

Yet another case of you couldn’t make it up!!!

It couldn’t possibly be Dunsfold Park that this man is speaking of… could it?

 

Screen Shot 2018-05-20 at 10.12.46.png

Ah! But there are some who don’t want jobs, homes, people or traffic, a school for the autistic, or a school for villagers children in and around DUNSFOLD. Same people who, but will happily support it here in Farnham – or in Godalming, Milford, Guildford, Haslemere, or Woking, Wrecclesham, or anywhere for that matter other than – at a brownfield site in DUNSFOLD! Get it!
Oh! and many of the moaners will probably work there when all those lovely jobs arise!
As for us here at the Waverley Web, we have all had a discussion. A Waitrose would go down well – even a Waitrose at Home – to join the M & S – in Alfold. Perhaps a few other major stores that Waverley Council, together with their partner Surrey County Council – who are investing over £50million over here in retail – could match in the East of the borough? Fairs, fair after all – because their other Farnham partner Crest Nicholson – is building shedloads of homes in Cranleigh  – that nobody appears to have noticed! 

Another – Puff of Wind – from You know who!

How to flog a dead horse until its bones rattle! Protect Our Waverley takes on yet another Judicial Review – this time against – Dunsfold Airfield!

 

pow_waverleyhorse.jpg

Editor’s Note: Protect our Little Corner claims to represent ‘a very large and continually growing number of concerned Waverley residents whose interest is in sustainable, balanced and appropriate development. We are seeking development to be led by a robust Local Plan and sustainable developments that meet local need as encouraged under the NPPF.’

Trouble is they have 339 followers, which is a mere 0.27% of the population of Waverley, which was 121,572 at the 2011 census!

Never mind flogging a dead horse, this particular horse’s bones are rattling!

Ah! well, that is the price we pay for democracy – another shedload of taxpayers’ money on its way to the legal beavers!

THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD FROM THE SORRY ADVERTISER

 

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!