Tag: Local Plan

Dunsfold Park decision – called in by the Secretary of State.

Screen Shot 2016-09-30 at 17.31.11.png

THEY THINK IT’S ALL OVER … AND IT PROBABLY IS!

It would seem that the Whip-Cracking Deputy Dominatrix, AKA Anne Milton MP, has more sway over Sajid Javid than we could have possibly imagined for it was announced today that Matron Milton has prevailed and persuaded the Secretary of State to call in Dunsfold Park’s planning application to build 1800 homes on the aerodrome.

Read the letter for yourself here: 170301 – Dunsfold – Rule 6 call in letter to LPA170301 – Dunsfold – Rule 6 call in letter to LPA

This will, without doubt, be a major blow to Your Waverley, which was depending on housing at the airfield to underpin its Daft Local Plan – which is now looking dafter by the minute, if that were possible!

On the one hand, we’re told the Government wants more housing and Waverley is being encouraged to build more houses and yet an application to build houses on the biggest brownfield site in the borough gets called in whilst, elsewhere, all over the Borough, green fields are being concreted over by developers who are contributing diddley-squat to the infrastructure needs of the Borough when compared with the millions (we believe the figure is around £50m) Dunsfold Park was going to pump in! You couldn’t make it up – not even if you tried!

Alongside Protect Our (Little Corner) of Waverley there will be plenty of developers who will be swilling back the Champagne today as they throw in their planning applications faster than Your Waverley’s printers can churn them out! And they’ll be laughing all the way to their earth-movers as Your Waverley is left high-and-dry whilst Dunsfold Park is in limbo-land courtesy of the Deputy Dominatrix and her all-too-willing-slave.

For, be in no doubt about it, in light of the loss of Dunsfold Park’s housing contribution, Your Waverley will have little option but to nod through another 265 homes at West Cranleigh Nurseries when the Joint Planning Committee meets next week – putting yet another nail in the coffin of Cranleigh New Town.

annemilton_newoutfitWell done, Anne, we have to hand it to you. You and your whip really are a cracking asset to Cranleigh! We and very many Cranleigh residents have no hesitation in laying the blame for the desecration of this once beautiful village on your front porch! We hope the donations made to your campaign coffers by Protect Our (Little Corner) of Waverley make it all worth your while.

And  the barristers at London’s Landmark Chambers, who not only regularly represent Your Waverley but also Dunsfold Park, will also be raising a glass or two or three to you tonight. Their coffers will be full to over-flowing by the time this sorry saga has played itself out.

For not only will Waverley be pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds down the borough’s overflowing drains but all that Council Tax Payer’s money could be swiftly followed by the £50 million Dunsfold Park were rumoured to be contributing to the local economy via infrastructure in the form of a new school, affordable homes, a new sewage works, leisure centre, sports centre … we could go on but you get the picture.

The irony of it is that this time Your Waverley and the Flying Scotsman will be in it together, singing from the same hymn sheet when this gets to Public Inquiry! You couldn’t make it up – you really, really couldn’t! Talk about the  unholy of unholy alliances!

So where does this decision leave Your Waverley’s Local Plan? WITH A GREAT BIG HOLE.

In short, it leaves everything to chance… WHY? Because, let’s face it, Your Waverley had no vision for Waverley – no vision for the East, the only people with any vision are the developers who are now circling overhead in their helicopters marking up their plans for yet more green fields they can concrete over to make up the 1800 shortfall that the Dunsfold Park Dilemma is going to place Your Waverley in!!!

 WW wonders if the site owners might just throw in the bricks and go for its second option – may we now see the resurgence of a very busy airfield? Thereby the very real and total destruction of the East of Waverley and in particular Cranleigh and the villages around – just 8 miles from the bottom of Gatwick’s runway! 

 AND .. Now the affordable housing threshold is reduced to 30% Godalming is 300 affordable houses short, so it, like most Neighbourhood Plans, it was relying on Dunsfold to have the space and money to make up the numbers..

Its a bit rich for Anne, and perhaps Jeremy, to call the plan in – we  assume in the name of democracy – as they don’t trust or support the judgement of their own Waverley Tories who approved  the decision at Planning.

Hope Our Annie has her darning needle at the ready to start stitching up that great big hole in the Daft Local Plan!

The latest joke doing the rounds:

Q  If it’s green and doesn’t move – what is it?

A. A potential development site in ‘Your Waverley’.

 

There’s definitely nothing boring about Inspector Bore!

 

No surprise there then… The Government Inspector Mr Jonathan Bore the man chosen to EXAMINE – “Your Waverley’s” Local Plan (it isn’t daft any more because it has now been voted through by councillors – though many of you may believe it is still Daft   – has more than just a few QUESTIONS … and he wants them ANSWERED!

AND… when they have answered all these set out on the link below …there are more Questions where these came from! Many more…

Poor Old Sick as a…  – “Graham Parrot” “Your Waverley’s planning officer, who is still smarting from the drubbing he was given last time the Local Plan was given a public airing, will be busy!

The first and last paragraphs are key, along with the cultural desert at para 8, and the fact that he doesn’t once mention the main constraint (Habitats). In other words… A Bore hole!

id_1_waverley_initial_questions_6_february_2017-2

Waverley has fallen at the first fence because the Inspector immediately picked up up on “Your Waverley”s”bizarre decision to reduce affordable housing to 30%. And he wants to know WHY?

Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 14.45.10.png

We think we know why ? Because Developers don’t want to build affordable homes for  rent. Why? Because once  built the tenants can, in future,  purchase  them under the Right to Buy legislation – with a 27% discount – and then they become “market housing.” This results in the need to build even more….”subsidised” housing to replace those sold and …  on and on it goes … with  more countryside biting the dust!

Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 14.46.01.pngScreen Shot 2017-02-16 at 14.46.50.png

Yes… indeed why not build all over sports pitches – memorial sports grounds, even Memorial community conservation gardens – after all isn’t that just what “Your Waverley” wants? So don’t be so negative Gone-to-Potts – Leader of “Your Waverley.”Get the CPO – Liz the Biz Sims to come up with some alternative wording like the good Inspector says  in the paragraph above!

Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 14.47.01.png

Yes! WBC Just what are those “exceptional circumstances” that justify altering the Green Belt?

Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 14.47.19.png

So get on with it – it is quite obvious you need to do a great deal more work on The Green Belt – after all you had set aside £1m of the taxpayers’ money for your little foray into Cranleigh’s Green Belt land to build an Industrial Estate?

So now you must come up with the “Exceptional Circumstances” that permit the council’s ability to do this – haven’t  you? Oops – no of course you don’t now do you – thanks to the Waverley Web unveiling your little secret to the good people over there in Cranleigh that little cunning plan has been ditched, hasn’t it!!

The Final Countdown – Is it full steam ahead for Waverley’s Local Plan?

Good old Waverley councillors – those you entrusted with  your vote  so they could speak on your behalf? Well…

… most of them were nowhere to be seen, or heard  when “Your Waverley’s” Community Overview & Scrutiny committee sat to “scrutinise” the last knockings of the  Local Plan before it is examined  by a Government Inspector.

“Couldn’t tear yourself away from “I’m a Celebrity Get me Out of Here” or the football to debate a vital document that  dictates  the borough’s future development?”

But worry not! Councillors: Tom Martin; Stephen Hill;  David Hunter; Simon Thornton; Denise Le Gal (too busy cooking up property deals?) Peter Martin; Sam Pritchard; Ross Welland; Liz Wheatley; Pat Frost; Bob Upton et al! Because at least some of your mates don’t view the electorate as mere “voting fodder so they  turned out to represent us!

Enough of our grumbling:

Thankfully – planning experts  were out in force-led by Chief  Officer “Liz The Biz “Sims who said the Plan had been – “years in the making – and there had been “robust” consultation with everyone – the public, stakeholders etc” She warned it was “critical” that  the tight timetable set by Government for early 2017 was kept, and tonight, (Monday’s meeting ) was an important part of the final process . “We are confident we can submit the plan to meet the deadline and stressed the very  real difficulties experienced by the council of not having an adopted  Local Plan or a five-year land supply.”

ThreeGents.png
If you don’t get the Local Plan at the finishing post – maybe the Government will do it for you?

Onto the business – all two plus hours of it – wrapped up into a nutshell:

Graham of “sick as a” Parrot fame – who is still reeling from the drubbing he received at the Inspector’s hands at the last Plan’s failure, outlined the challenges facing the borough and  highlighted some of the issues raised by objectors – including The Save Our Waverley Group. ( Now re-named by many as the “Save Our Little Bit of Waverley Group and S** the rest of the Borough.”

and.. as he outlined some of the comments even he raised his eyebrows when suggestions included:

  • Make  Dunsfold Aerodrome into a – Conservation Area – or a Borough Heritage asset.  (or even perhaps  a National Monument.)
  • That even with the figure of 519 homes per year – there would be an unmet need.
  • The Plan relied too heavily upon Dunsfold Airfield,with some arguing it was not a Brownfield site others arguing that it was and  there should be many more than the 2,600 identified – perhaps even 6,000/8,000
  • Too much housing was concentrated in the East of the borough – and  in particular in  Cranleigh, which lacked infrastructure.
  • Some believed  the villages needed more housing, some less.
  • Infrasture/flooding and drainage issues were of concern in the East.
  • Transport, air quality and habitat  issues (Thames Basin Heath and Wealden Heath issues in  Farnham and beyond.
  • The needs of Gipsies was unmet.
  •  Insufficient employment sites were identified.
  •  Green Belt issues were identified- around Godalming/Elstead and South Farnham.
  •  The Strategic gaps between towns/settlements had been identified – but it was suggested  more should be included  in South  Farnham/Rowledge and Dockenfield.

Then Councillors who did turn up had their say very ably led by the committee/Council’s new boy – Councillor Jerry Hyman (Farnham Residents’) and did we detect a sneaking admiration for the way he handled a very complex and lengthy meeting – no of course not – we couldn’t have could we – silly us!

Predictably By-Pass Byham and All at Seaborne – blamed all Bramley’s traffic problems including the increase in HGV’s at Dunsfold’s door. Even the bits that fell off lorries onto the heads of pedestrians? Has anyone told them that THEY gave permission for Cranleigh Brick and Tile to run 700 hundred of 50 tonners every day for the next 5 + years down the A281! All with Surrey highways’ blessing. And…   didn’t the Bramley Parish Council  trouser a big fat cheque  for allowing it.  Hypocrisy personified – we’d call it!

It was Shamley Green’s very own Mike “Rubber” Band who warned  officers they better get the Plan right this time because 11 Parish Councils all led by the POW group now renamed POLBOW, were going to CHALLENGE THEM BIG TIME! 

and… that isn’t a threat its a PROMISE!

Whist he  completely ignored the fact that all the traffic from all the new Cranleigh developments – supported by Waverley’s various planning committee’s – will be travelling through … yes… you guessed Shamley Green and Wonersh. (By the way where was the Wonersh Sleepy Jean- Councillor Goodridge? – Tucked up in bed with a nightcap perhaps…?”

Councillor John Gray said he was “disappointed” there was no mention of “alternative   site allocations” for the areas around Dunsfold/Alfold and Cranleigh.

 Wake up Dummy – there are planning applications from  the wannabe’s for over 1,000 homes in total – don’t you read the planning and Appeal lists?

Portfolio Holder – Brian Adams stressed “all sites” had been assessed – infrastructure problems affected many of them (e.g. sewage/drainage/flooding problems.) And… it was explained The figure  for affordable homes had been dropped from 40% to 30% because housing associations didn’t want to build homes for rent, (due to the 1% cut in rents) and  shared ownership properties.  Stressing  only open market properties es provided the funds needed to provide – vital Infrastructure.

Another warning: “We’ll see about that when the Plan is Examined by the Inspector – because it WILL BE CHALLENGED! said Dunsfold’s Councillor Gray who just supported a development in Dunsfold village for 43 homes at Nugent Close with sewage pumping into…. guess where CRANLEIGH!

As there is only so much a reader can handle – suffice to say:

The document now passes to the EXECUTIVE and FULL Council for the final countdown November 29th.

But before we sign off, we must  mention a comment regarding Infrastructure: made by the Chairman: Jerry Hyman”

He said soto voce (but we could all hear it on the webcast) “It appears  to me that all the Infrastructure in the borough is being provided by Dunsfold Park!

** Infrastructure – roads, schools, sewage treatment; power;………..

Knocking on No 10’s door?

Whilst our followers have been out there buying presents, stuffing, basting and doing all things Christmas and New Year the army of developers eager to build all over Waverley have been knock’a’knock knocking on heavens door . Or… the answer to all their prayers – The Government’s door.

Screen Shot 2015-12-17 at 18.14.39.png
“Please, please let us build all over the green fields in the Borough of Waverley Mr Prime Minister” 

Yes, the good, the bad and the downright ugly have been tripping up to No 10 Downing Street to see  Government Ministers  to have a good old gripe about “Our Waverley.” Moaning about delays preparing the Daft Local Plan;  Delays on Appeals; delays in validating and registering planning applications; delays in considering planning applications; delays in responding to applicants; delays in dealing with conditions attached to planning applications once  granted …delays…delays..delays and …yep you guessed delays!

Even though the poor old Big D’s are filling in zillions of forms, reports, and surveys on everything from bats to bees, newts to nesting sites;  not forgetting flooding zones,  good old Waverley, has  brought in a SUDS requirement, that is a pro forma unique to Waverley. No it has nothing  to do with washing powder – it is Sustainable Urban Drainage System – a topographical survey that now has to accompany applications. Surrey County Council is now  the strategic drainage authority.

By the way, that’s who we blame from now on when our new homes flood!”  It would appear the Environment  Agency  has washed its hands of it!

Has the Government been listening?   You bet it has, reeling off another update to planning guidance to get those concert mixers churning.

Deemed Discharge of Planning Condition
The Government has introduced the principle of deemed discharge into the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (by way of the Infrastructure Act 2015) and consolidated and reissued the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 (the “DMPO 2015”) to provide the detail on how deemed discharge works in practice. The new legislation came into effect on 15 April 2015.
The new deemed discharge provisions acknowledge and seek to address unnecessary delays caused by the discharge of planning conditions that can prevent developments with planning permission from commencing. Following a consultation last year the Government considered that new measures should be introduced to give greater certainty for all parties around when decisions could be expected.

WW believes This is an insult to our decent representatives at WBC.

A Local Planning Authority (“LPA”) is required to determine an application for approval of a condition within 8 weeks following receipt of the application (or such other longer period as may be agreed between the applicant and the LPA in writing). If an LPA fails to determine within 8 weeks or the agreed period a right of appeal accrues.
In order to provide the required information on surface water drainage from the proposed development the attached pro-forma must be completed in full and be submitted with any planning application which seeks permission for ‘major’ development (unique to WBC). The application for planning permission will not be validated until this pro-forma is completed. This information contained in this form will be used by Surrey Council in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority and ‘statutory consultee’ on SuDs for all ‘major’ planning applications.

Appeals against Waverley decisions now with the Government are taking 18 months. Many  applications are taking 8 weeks just to be registered – and there are more public inquiries planned than WW can count. All this just  when  Chief Planning Officer Matthew Evans  has resigned and we hear is hopping across the County boundary into Hampshire to help them with their Local Plan. Oh dear!

Procedure
Deemed Discharge at a Glance:

1. Submit an application in writing to the LPA for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition attached to a planning permission with the requisite supporting information.
2. Serve a ‘deemed discharge notice’ on the LPA no sooner than 6 weeks after the application to discharge the condition is made.
3. Deemed discharge takes effect if the LPA has not notified the applicant of its decision within 14 days of receiving the deemed discharge notice.

Onwards and upwards we say…