Annex 2 Extracts - Waverley Council · Waverley Borough Council adopted this Local Plan at its meeting on 23rd April 2002. ... 7.51 Planning permission has been granted for the permanent

SDPNT Poe 1.1 - WA Atkins Impact Study – Annex 2 Extracts


1


2

SDPNT Poe 1.2 - Property Week – 22-11-02

Property Week – 22-11-02 Offices - From Top Gun to Top Gear 22 November 2002

Rutland Group is redeveloping Dunsfold aerodrome for mixed-use. We report on the site that has become famous as the practice ground for BBC motor show Top Gear

By Claer Barrett

Known locally as 'Surrey's secret airbase', the pastoral surrounds of Dunsfold give no clues that a 213 ha (525 acre) development site nestles behind the oak trees.

The former BAE Systems aerodrome is one of the largest brownfield sites in the south-east, and is surprisingly discreet. Unless you count the milestone on the road outside proclaiming that Brighton is 34 miles away, no signposts mark the entrance to Dunsfold Park. As bizarre as the location may be, Rutland Group was confident enough to buy the site in September through its joint venture with the Royal Bank of Scotland, and plans are already afoot for a mixed-use development.

In the meantime, the landing strips which were formerly used to test Harrier jump jets have been obtained on a short-term lease by the BBC's Top Gear programme. Jeremy Clarkson et al can regularly be seen roaring up and down runways, and other TV and film producers are keen to get a piece of the action and use the site as a location before redevelopment starts.

Looking out across Dunsfold Park's acres of featureless landscape, it seems ironic that apart from this deal, Surrey's commercial market is flat. Take-up in the principal towns is at an all-time low, and the few deals that have been struck in the last quarter have been secured with huge occupier incentives. The battle to win planning consent for Dunsfold means that future development of the park is five to 10 years in the future. This is just as well, as Strutt & Parker predicts that parts of the Surrey market are swamped by up to four years' worth of supply.

Jump to it

Built by the Canadian Air Force during the second world war, Dunsfold Aerodrome was used as a test area for Harrier jump jets before being decommissioned 18 months ago. The site's distance from the M25 and M3 has caused many in the market to speculate that the principal function of the new development will be residential. However, Rutland Group is adamant that commercial uses will be viable.

Chief executive Jim McAllister reveals he is looking to attract some of Surrey's many small, high-value companies such as IT and media outfits. 'Already, a number of local companies with long-term objectives have contacted us,' he reveals. 'They are pre-planning, coming in here when their leases expire and taking purpose-built office buildings.'

1

http://www.property-week.co.uk/linkMatches.asp?linkcode=1230




The surroundings are certainly stunning – the park is next to the Surrey Hills, an area of outstanding natural beauty. But there are concerns that it may be too remote to be commercially viable. Conventional business parks rely on the car, but Dunsfold's rural infrastructure and environmental sensitivity makes this a problem.

McAllister is not fazed. 'If the real intention is to get people out of their cars, you are never going to achieve that unless alternative transport is dependable, frequent and high-quality,' he argues. Green issues are an area Rutland excels in. Its other projects elsewhere in the country have orbital rapid transport routes incorporated into their design.

McAllister is pleased to have inherited 39,018 sq m (420,000 sq ft) of industrial space on the airfield.

'Industrial land in Surrey is as scarce as hen's teeth,' he says. The dire shortage of industrial units in the area is good news for the developer's income stream, and its appointed agent Knight Frank expects deals to rush through as soon as the change of use consent comes through after Christmas.

At this stage, it looks like residential will have a big part to play in the future development of the site. 'I think it has to figure very highly in the masterplanning process,' says McAllister. 'The live/work relationship will be a fundamental part of future major sites, particularly in highly priced areas like this.'

Early indications suggest the majority of the residential offering will follow the Wey and Arun Canal that runs along the site's south-eastern boundary. Referring to Surrey's housing shortage of 7,000 homes, McAllister asserts: 'It's not all going to go on Dunsfold, but we could contribute enormously to the shortage.'

"We’re a development company, not a charity. We just like doing it nicely"

Jim McAllister, Rutland Group

When it comes to submitting a planning application, McAllister admits he will have to move faster than he first anticipated. Dunsfold is one of the most expensive residential areas in the country, and local residents are not happy about the threat of 'riff raff' descending on their manor.

Complaints have already been received about the screeching tyres coming from the BBC's Top Gear test track, where various celebrities burn rubber every week testing top sports cars. McAllister is in a unique position to communicate with the locals – his own estate is all of three miles from the site. Interestingly, this was a significant factor in his decision to buy the air base. 'I wanted to make sure that it was done properly and would not impact badly on the area,' he explains.

McAllister is in the process of acquiring 'buffer sites' around the airbase to conceal future development from local objectors. A deal on a 8.9 ha (22 acre) chunk has just completed, and McAllister has started negotiating on other areas of surrounding land. An active member of the Royal Forestry Society, he plans to landscape the boundary and plant lots of trees.

2




'We need to ensure in the long term that our neighbours are protected as much as possible from any light pollution or noise,' he says. But his commercial edge has not been softened: 'We're a development company, not a charity. We just like doing it nicely.'

3

SDPNT Poe 1.3 - WBC Local Plan 2002, Section 7.55 - Extracts

Waverley Borough

Local Plan

2002

This is the "Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002", formerly known as the "Waverley Borough Replacement Local Plan". Waverley Borough Council adopted this Local Plan at its meeting on 23rd April 2002. It replaces the

Waverley Borough Local Plan 1993.

This document is not the final printed version of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002. Further typographical changes may be made prior to

printing the final version of the Plan.

April 2002

SDPNT Poe 1.3 - WBC Local Plan 2002, Section 7.55 - Extracts

Dunsfold Aerodrome 7.50 Dunsfold Aerodrome is situated in the rural area beyond the Green Belt. The airfield was built during World War II by the Canadian Army as an emergency airfield. Military use ceased after the War and it was allowed to be used for civilian aviation uses subject to restrictions. The aerodrome is currently owned and was, until the end of the year 2000, operated by BAE Systems for the assembly, repair and flight testing of aircraft. 7.51 Planning permission has been granted for the permanent use of the site for the assembly, repair and flight testing of aircraft subject to conditions. There is no longer any requirement for the land to be returned to agriculture or its occupation restricted to BAE Systems. 7.52 In June 1999 BAE Systems announced that Dunsfold Aerodrome was to close at the end of the year 2000. 7.53 The aerodrome extends to 213.7 hectares (528 acres) and contains some 46,450 square metres (500,000 square feet) of buildings concentrated along the northern perimeter of the site. The principal access to the site is via Stovold's Hill, a single carriageway road running south from the B2130. The junction of Stovold's Hill with the B2130 is hazardous. There is a secondary access to the site on the south-eastern boundary through Compass Gate. 7.54 With over 1,000 employees employed at the site, BAE Systems (Dunsfold) was, until closure, the largest employer in Waverley. 7.55 A study was commissioned in 1999 to assess the economic, social and environmental impacts of the closure of aerodrome and to identify ways forward. The position regarding the future of Dunsfold Aerodrome continues to change. In view of this, it would be premature to include specific policies in the Plan. It may be appropriate that Planning Guidance supplementary to Policy C2 and/or a Planning Brief should be prepared at a future date.

SDPNT Poe 1.3 - WBC Local Plan 2002, Section 7.55 - Extracts 1

SDPNT Poe 1.4 - WBC SPG Letter To Residents - 17 Oct 2003

1

SDPNT Poe 1.4 - WBC SPG Letter To Residents - 17 Oct 2003

2

SDPNT Poe 1.5 - Note Prepared By WBC For SPG Consultation

SDPNT Poe 1.6 - WBC - Summary Of Outcome Of SIG Meetings 2003

DUNSFOLD AERODROME

Public Consultation: October/November/December 2003

Summary of main outcomes

CONSULTATION 1. A consultation leaflet summarising the main aims and objectives of the Supplementary Planning

Guidance together with a summary of the benefits and disadvantages of four future options for the site was circulated to over 7,000 households in the parishes of Alfold, Bramley, Cranleigh, Dunsfold and Hascombe. Additional copies were also made available to residents in Hambledon Parish. Copies of the consultation document were also freely available at the Waverley offices in Godalming and at the Cranleigh Locality Office.

2. 573 responses were received, nearly 52% (296) of which were from Cranleigh residents. 80

responses (14%) were received from Bramley residents, 80 (14%) from Dunsfold residents, 71 (12%) from Alfold residents, 15 (3%) from Hascombe residents and 6 (1%) from Hambledon residents. Some 19 responses (3%) were received from as far as Aldershot and Farnborough in the west, Runnymede, Sunbury on Thames and Epsom in the north, Horley in the east and Worthing and Brighton in the south. 6 (1%) did not give their home location.

3. Individual responses/ letters were received from;

• British Gliding Association • Civil Aviation Authority • CPRE • Dunsfold Aerodrome Group • Dunsfold Park Ltd • Forestry Commission • General Aviation Awareness Council • GOSE • Horsham District Council • SCC (Planning & Countryside) • SCC (Transportation Development Control) • SCC (Woodlands and Countryside Management) • Surrey County Scouts • Wey & Arun Canal Trust • 13 individuals/households

4. Responses were also been received from

• Alfold Parish Council • Dunsfold Parish Council • Hambledon Parish Council

5. No response was received from

• Bramley Parish Council • Cranleigh Parish Council

1


6. Five public meetings/workshops were held in the village halls in Alfold, Bramley, Cranleigh, Dunsfold and Hascombe. Some 325 people attended the five public meetings in the various village halls. A small number of individuals attended all the meetings. The meetings were, however, structured to ensure that everyone had an equal opportunity to put forward his/her views and that no one group was able to dominate the discussions.

7. Meetings were also held with a 5 business partners and with a group of 25 secondary school

children at Glebelands School, Cranleigh

CONCLUSIONS 8. The following conclusions can be drawn:

a) general consensus with aims and objectives, but need redrafting as they are too “woolly” and need to be expressed more succinctly.

b) some consensus for aims/objectives to seek consistency with Policy C2, give greater

emphasis to ensuring that impact of activity on the aerodrome no worse than when aerodrome at maximum use by BAe and that objectives should not seek consistency with deposit draft Structure Plan regarding light aviation uses;

c) with the exception of the Business Partners, there was little support for objective which seeks

to meet the wider Waverley needs. d) support for aims/objectives to state specifically that the amount of development in the future

should be limited to that which currently exists, subject to current limitations set by existing conditions, and for retaining open parts of the site for countryside uses/woodland/wildlife.

e) support for aims/objectives to express a preference for “quieter” activities. f) traffic generation and the impact of traffic on the wider area, in particular on the A281 as it

passes through Bramley Village is a major concern. g) respondents in those villages most closely located to the aerodrome (Alfold, Dunsfold and

Hascombe) are most favourably inclined to favour the non-aviation-based option (Option 4). The further people live from the aerodrome, the more inclined they are to favour aviation-based options.

h) virtually no support for aviation options from any of the four Parish Councils which have

responded so far; i) with the exception of the 18-30 age group, there is a fairly split opinion between aviation and

non-aviation based options.. j) with the exception of some of the younger people, no support for Option 1.

2


k) Option 2 received mixed support from the general public and business, however concerns about: • viability; • potential noise, disturbance and pollution; • safety; • light pollution • type and size of aircraft; • the future of buildings on the site not required for recreational aviation (creeping development)

l) No support for “open ended aviation”. Those who supported aviation of the view that the

aviation uses could be controlled by conditions (similar to those which exist at present). Recognition that recreational/light aviation not likely to be viable on its own.

m) Option 3 also received mixed support, with more support from the questionnaire responses.

However, similar concerns to Option expressed, and those who attended the workshops generally considered that adverse impacts would be worse. Also concerns expressed that this option could lead to increased demands for housing and that the site was not suitable/viable for business operation.

n) Option 4 also received mixed support, particularly for innovative business operations, but

concerns about • loss of airfield resource • viability • traffic • noise/disturbance from new uses • need for new/improved infrastructure (including new/improved direct access to A281)

o) significant support for fifth option which contained future development within the existing

mass/footprint of the developed area on the northern side of the aerodrome and within existing planning conditions, leaving the remainder of the site for rural/recreational uses.

p) some support for using the whole site as a film studio. q) much support for using the undeveloped parts of the site for low-key recreation. Some

support for more intensive recreation uses (sports centre/dry ski slope/lake for water-borne recreation) particularly from younger people.

r) some support for using a small part of the site near the Compasses Gate for affordable

housing, but little support for significant housing development/new village. s) some support for moving industrial concerns in Cranleigh (Hewitt’s, Littlemead, Cranleigh

Freight) to this site and for long term redevelopment of the existing sites in Cranleigh for affordable housing.

t) some support for

• using part of the Dunsfold site for the new Cranleigh Hospital. • using part of the site for history centre/museum • possible restoration of the Guildford/Horsham rail link • restoration of historic routes/footpaths across the site

3

SDPNT Poe 1.7 - Citizens Panel Survey Report 2005 - Extracts

Waver ley Borough Counci l : Consultat ion on Local Development Framework and South East Plan

SSMR

1

1

Waverley Borough Council Consultation on Local Development Framework and

South East Plan A Citizens’ Panel Survey, 2005

1 . In t roduc t ion and Ob jec t ive The way in which local authorities approach planning is changing and Waverley Borough Council wanted to

obtain the views of its residents concerning two plans for the future – the Core Strategy of the Local

Development Framework and the South East Plan (the Regional Assembly’s plan for the whole South East

Region). The views of Citizens’ Panel members were therefore sought on the issues encompassed by these

plans.

Surrey Social and Market Research (SSMR), at the University of Surrey, was commissioned to conduct and

report on the survey.

Details of the methodology and sample are presented in Section 2. Section 3 provides an executive

summary, and Section 4 presents the findings and summary tables.

Research Ob jec t ive : The overall objective of this consultation exercise was to provide quantitative information concerning

Waverley residents’ (Citizens’ Panel members) views on the issues, objectives and possible options for local

development within Waverley as outlined in the Local Development Framework; and on the options in the

South East Plan and local concerns with this Plan.



SSMR

2

2

2 . Research Method and Sample A questionnaire for self-completion was sent to all members of the Waverley Citizens’ Panel. This database

comprises Waverley residents who have agreed to take part in consultation exercises on service delivery

and local priorities. The questionnaire included background information on both the Local Development

Framework and the South East Plan in order to enable residents to give an informed response. A summary

paper on the South East Plan was also included.

Copies of the questionnaire and covering letter are shown in the Appendix.

Topics covered in the questionnaire included the following:

• Waverley’s vision for 2016

• Importance of issues affecting development in Waverley

• Importance of the objectives for the local Development Framework

• Options for location of development

• Levels of growth in South East Plan

• Issues of concern about South East Plan identified by Waverley councillors

Sample De ta i l s Of the 1085 questionnaires despatched on 18th February, 2005, 503 were returned by the cut-off date for

analysis, 11th March, 2005. This represents a response rate of 46 per cent. This is lower than has been

seen in previous Citizens’ Panel surveys, but is felt to be encouraging in view of the amount and complexity

of the information recipients were required to read and assimilate before completing the survey. This had

been summarised as far as possible and was the minimum information on which it was felt respondents

could be expected to provide an informed response.

The details of the sample of respondents who returned questionnaires are as follows.

Base (all respondents): 503 Sex: % Male Female

54 45



SSMR

3

3

Age: % 16-24 1 25-34 5 35-44 15 45-59 29 60-74 39 75 plus 10 NS 1 Employment:

%

Full-time employment 28 Part-time employment 11 Self-employed 10 Retired 38 Homemaker 9 Student - Unemployed 1 Sick 1 Other 1 NS 1 Social group: % AB 39 C1 28 C2 7 D 4 E 17 NS 5 Disability: % None 83 Self 7 Other adult 4 Young person 1 NS 5 Area: %

GU9 (Farnham) 23

GU10 (Frensham, Dockenfield, Tilford) 15

GU7 (Godalming and Farncombe) 16

GU26 and 27 Hindhead and Haslemere) 15

GU6 and RH (Cranleigh, Ewhurst and West Sussex borders) 13

GU4, GU5 and GU8 (rural villages) 17



SSMR

4

4

4 . De ta i l ed F ind ings Extracts 4.2 Options for location of development

Four ideas open to the Council regarding the best location for development were put forward as options with

an indication of the advantages and disadvantages of each option. It was stressed that these ‘options’ were

not proposals but simply ideas put forward to generate discussion in the community about how future

development should be accommodated.

The options put forward were as follows:

Option 1: Continue with our present approach

Option 2: Development in the four towns and selected villages on main transport routes

Option 3: Focus of greater development on four urban areas and not on villages

Option 4: Develop a new settlement

(More detail on these can be seen in the questionnaire)

Respondents were asked to choose one option from these four that they favoured for development. There

was no overall consensus of opinion. Nearly four in ten favoured Option 1, continuing with the present

approach and nearly three in ten favoured Option 2, concentrating development in the four towns and

selected villages. Two in ten favoured the development of a new settlement, Option 4, but less than one in

ten wanted to see greater development focused on the four urban areas alone.

Table 9: Favoured options for location of development Base: 503

% favouring

Option 1 38

Option 2 28

Option 3 9

Option 4 21

Not stated 3

Option 1 was favoured by fewer respondents in Farnham and in Godalming/Farncombe and by fewer

respondents aged 45 and over. Conversely, Option 2 was favoured by more of those in Farnham and in

Godalming/Farncombe.

When asked whether they had identified any other option, just 13% of respondents made a comment, with

most comments referring to the existing options, as follows:



SSMR

5

5

No. of respondents A mixture of all/taking some of the best parts of each 7

Development in area other than South East England 5

Decision to be made locally, not by central government 4

Develop Dunsfold 4

Use MOD land (in Hampshire) 3

Develop brownfield sites 2

Option 4 is possible 12






SSMR

6

6

Appendix

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( e x t r a c t s )

a n d C o v e r i n g l e t t e r



SSMR

7

7

S J Thwaites BSc DipEP MRTPI Director of Planning and Development

Fax No: 01483-523200

Our ref: P63/5/9; P52/3

When calling please ask for: Louise Goodfellow

Direct line: 01483 523148

E-mail: [email protected]

Date: 18 February 2005

Dear Citizens’ Panelist Planning Department – Consultation on the Core Strategy and the South East Plan The way in which local authorities approach planning is changing and we should be very glad if you would help us by giving you views on two topics:

• The Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework (a new kind of Local Plan)

• the South East Plan (the Regional Assembly’s plan for the whole South East Region). The following papers are enclosed:

• A questionnaire on the Core Strategy and the South East Plan (including background information)

• A “glossy” summary paper of the South East Plan

Your opinions are important to us, so we hope that you will find time to complete this questionnaire. The questionnaires will be treated as confidential and only the independent researchers involved in this project will have access to any personal information. Following completion of the survey, questionnaires will be stored securely; this is in compliance with the Data Protection Act. We are being assisted in this research by Surrey Social and Market Research (SSMR), an independent social research agency, based at the University of Surrey. We would appreciate it if you could return the questionnaire to SSMR in the FREEPOST envelope provided by Friday 4 March 2005. If you have any questions or comments about this research please contact Louise Goodfellow here at Waverley on 01483 523148 or e-mail her on [email protected] Yours sincerely

Stephen Thwaites Director of Planning and Development

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



8

SSMR 8



9

SSMR 9



10

SSMR 10



11

SSMR 11



12

SSMR 12



13

SSMR 13



14

SSMR 14



15

SSMR 15

SDPNT Poe 1.8 - Res. Survey On Core Strategy - Extracts

1


2


3


4


5


6


29th June 2005 Dear Local Resident Planning Survey on the Core Strategy Earlier this year, Waverley Borough Council consulted some of its residents on four options for the location of future development in the Borough. As a result, the views given to us have been included in a new document setting out Core Policies. We now want to consult more widely within Waverley and would like to offer you the opportunity to give your views on the draft policies for development. We would like you to read through them and, although the information is quite detailed, we simply ask you to say whether you agree or disagree. If you would like to learn more about these policies you can view them at www.waverley.gov.uk/ldf/con_policies.asp. Alternatively, hard copies of the document can be viewed at the Council Offices in Godalming, the three Locality Offices (Farnham, Haslemere and Cranleigh), and any of the libraries (Farnham, Haslemere, Godalming, Cranleigh and Bramley). We have asked Surrey Social and Market Research (SSMR), at the University of Surrey, to assist us with this consultation. All of your answers will be treated in the strictest confidence. Please return the completed questionnaire by Monday, 18th July in the pre-paid envelope provided. No stamp is required. I hope that you will be able to take part in this important study and feel sure that you will find it interesting. The results will help influence planning for your Borough. Thank you very much for your help in advance. If you have any queries please contact Sarah Plant on 01483 523471. Yours sincerely

Geraldine Molony, Principal Planning Officer If you require a large print version, please contact Sarah Plant on 01483 523471. Questionnaire Extract follows

7


8


9

PUBLIC CONSULTATION • FEBRUARY 2006

What is this about?This leaflet explainsour current thinkingabout the future ofDunsfold Park.It is an opportunity for local people to providefeedback on the future Vision for the site.

Our aim is to consult with as broad anaudience as possible. So please read on and let us have your thoughts by filling in the questionnaires.

If you missed the Dunsfold Park publicexhibition at Glebelands School, in Cranleigh,on 16-18 February, please visit the website,www.dunsfoldpark.co.uk, where you can viewthe exhibition boards in full.

Where is Dunsfold Park?Dunsfold Park is one of the largest brownfieldsites in Surrey comprisingsome 600 acres (240 ha).

It is about 2.25 miles west ofCranleigh and roughly mid-waybetween Guildford and Horsham on the A281.

A large proportion of the site iscovered by runways, buildings,roads and hard-standings and grass areas for aviation safety run off. Areas around the site arecovered by woodland and a morenatural landscape.

Dunsfold Park and its adjacent landholding covers some 1600 acres,about 2% of the land area of theBorough of Waverley.

Setting an example for the South East

The history ofDunsfold ParkHeritageThe site was built by the Royal Canadian Engineers in 1942 and served as a bomberbase during the war. After the war, it was usedas a repatriation and relocation airfield forBritish and foreign troops.

Dunsfold Park then became an aircraft testingand manufacturing centre producing manywell-known aircraft including the Harrier, theHunter and the Hawk.

Owners of the siteDunsfold Park Ltd acquired the site from BAe Systems in 2002 with a view to removingthe aviation use and redeveloping the site.Dunsfold Park Ltd is a joint venture companyowned by The Rutland Group and the RoyalBank of Scotland, and is headed up by ChiefExecutive, Jim McAllister.

Mitchell Bomber / B52

Red Arrows at Wings & Wheels charity airshow

AFLT 8 Squadron, Dunsfold Aerodrome 1944

Dunsfold Park todayDunsfold Park is a privately ownedoperational airfield. It currentlyincludes 46,451 sq m (500,000 sq ft)of business space, which housessome 90 firms employing more than 500 people.

The site plays host to an active business and aviation community:

• local companies provide a range of services to the surrounding area such as electrical engineering, building contracting, printing, joinery and manufacturing

• global companies are developing ground-breaking technologies on site including ocean temperature surveys, clean air systems, energy efficient vehicles, fuel cell technology and audio design and manufacture

• a range of media companies arealso present

The site is much in demand as a film and TVlocation, the best-known user probably beingBBC’s Top Gear.

Where do wego from here?Last year, Waverley BoroughCouncil published four options to accommodate the expectedgrowth in local population.

At the same time, Dunsfold Park Ltd has done extensiveresearch into future options for the airfield: what will besustainable, commercially viable and most beneficial tothe local area. Our evaluation points to Dunsfold ParkLtd’s preferred option of a new settlement.

However, no decision has yet been taken on howDunsfold Park will develop and one of the main aims of this exhibition is to invite your comments on thealternative futures for the airfield.

Dunsfold Park Ltd’s preferred option is No 4, a newsettlement - this corresponds with Waverley BoroughCouncil’s option No 4, which is also a new settlement- but in their case, no end date has been set.

Dunsfold Park future options

Waverley Borough Council future options

The VisionWe set a challenge to the professional team - to create a model for sustainable development and an inspiring place to live andwork. Our vision is to remove aviation and create a new settlementwhich is water, energy and waste neutral. The ‘village’ will be self sustaining with homes, workspace and local services, all within walking distance and surrounded by 350 acres of newlycreated parkland.

We have set out ten guiding principles for the design, developmentand management of the new village:• Create a new concept in rural living and an inspiring place to work• Provide different types and sizes of homes for local residents,

including affordable homes in a compact settlement• Provide an excellent range of community facilities & local amenities• Incorporate innovative environmental techniques to minimise waste

consumption and provide green energy• Create new public transport links, as well as walking & cycling

connections to surrounding villages• Expand the existing business park to generate new employment

for local people• Provide public access to large areas of landscaped parkland & lakes• Promote local agriculture and forestry• Celebrate the aviation history of Dunsfold Aerodrome

by developing an aviation museum • Improve the quality of life in the Cranfold community

The Environmental ChallengeThree options are being considered for the redevelopment of thesite. Common to all of our options will be the need to address the global environmental challenge. Our aim is to create Britain’smost sustainable village by incorporating innovative technologiesand practices for energy waste and water management.

The Rutland Group, part of Dunsfold Park Ltd, has a strong track recordin sustainable development and has won a number of environmentaland design awards for its work at Bedfont Lakes, Middlesex, amongstothers. Some of our ideas include:

Green energy - By using Combined Heat and Power, a fuel efficienttechnology, which generates power and recycles the heat normallywasted by conventional systems. Dunsfold Park will use biomass fuelmade from local crops, forests and woodlands.

Reducing waste - Innovative new technologies will convert householdwaste into fuel and fertiliser without the smells and pollution created byconventional treatments.

Conserving water - Rainwater will be carefully harvested and recycled.Water efficient appliances will help to reduce consumption andsustainable urban drainage systems will treat surface water run-off,deal with flood management and feed landscape water features.

Ecohomes - An official means of rating the impact of new homes onthe environment. Dunsfold Park aims to achieve an ‘Excellent’ rating.

Sustainable transport - Providing incentives to use energy-efficient andlow pollution technologies, like hybrid and hydrogen powered vehicles.We will also be looking to improve public transport, cycle routes and footpaths and for recreation, we are helping in therestoration of the Wey and Arun Canal.

Modern communications - Dunsfold Park will use smart technology togive up-to-the minute information on energy use, public transport, on-line shopping and local events etc.

Option 1

Do nothing

The site would decay and be broken up

and sold on

Option 2

Significant expansion of existing commercial

activity

Option 3

Major increase in commercial aviation

Option 4

Develop a new settlement

in a landscaped setting

Option 1

Continue with present approach

Option 2

Development in thefour main towns and selected villages on

main transport routes

Option 3

Focus greater development in four urban areas only and not in the villages

Option 4

Develop a new settlement

High Street SchemeThis option treats the business village andresidential village as separate entities withthe main landscaped area lying between.

They connect at one point only, where themain route passes from one to the other. The market square which is situated at thejunction between the high street and the routewhich connects the business and residentialvillages, would be the best location for localshops and community facilities.

Common components for each scheme include:• A new direct connection to the A281

• Dedicated bus, cycle and walking routes to Cranleigh and the surrounding villages

• Some 2,600 houses to match local jobs and needs

• Around 350 acres of lakes and parkland

• An improved and expanded business district

• A primary school, health services and other local amenities

The Residential villageThe residential village is concentrated in the southern part of the site and hasa continuous frontage to the canal. This idea reinstates the historic routesacross the site and connects them intothe high street in the residential villageand to the business village to the north.

The Business villageThe business village is concentrated in the northern part of the site and has a continuous frontage to thelandscaped park, which includes theaviation museum.

Island SchemeThis idea keeps and celebrates the shape ofthe airfield, including the triangular pattern ofthe runways and the continuous circuit of theperimeter road - which become the definingfeatures of the new village.

The three runways are transformed into canals,each with a distinctive character. The triangulararea at the centre becomes an island reachedvia bridges over the canals - a little piece ofVenice, Delft or Bruges comes to Surrey.

The Island - a pedestrian neighbourhood withthe intimate car-free character of Europe’sfamous canal townsGrand Canal - the main runway becomes a majestic main canal Dutch Canal - is narrowed to a more intimatescale, with tree-lined streets each side. It couldbe lined with moorings, and connected into therestored Wey and Arun, to enable canal boatsto circulate around the villageWetland Waterway - is planted with reed bedsand has a more naturalistic character. It alsoprovides a filtration system, forming part of thesustainable urban drainage strategy [SUDS]Bridges - There are nine bridges crossing to the Island each of which could haveindividual character and designCar Barns - Private cars will be parked in ‘carbarns’ located on the ‘mainland’ side of eachbridge providing managed, secure andconvenient parking for residents and visitors

Transport AlternativesDunsfold Park is capable of accommodating some2000 jobs and there are around 7000 more jobs in the surrounding Cranfold villages. We will beimplementing a number of measures to reducetravel and provide more sustainable travel options.

Reducing the need to travel:• Matching housing at Dunsfold Park

to jobs on site and the Cranfold cluster• Shared IT facilities for greater work

flexibility and working from home• Homes for older residents, who have

different travel needs• School and local shops and services

at Dunsfold Park

We will work with the local authorities to prioritisepeople working locally in the allocation of socialhousing.

Providing for more sustainable travelThere are a number of transport problems in the localarea. Public transport is minimal and unattractivewhich means the vast majority of journeys are beingmade by car, leading to local congestion.

We are committed to making travel in the area moresustainable in the future and are looking at a numberof improvement options, some of which are listed:• Free bus passes in the Cranfold area• High quality bus services to Guildford & Horsham • Bus priority and dedicated bus links

in critical places• Congestion charging in critical places• Car clubs

• Park and ride/share schemes to Guildford and Horsham

• Real-time bus information systems on the web

• Dunsfold Park service/mileage chargeto contribute to public transport

• Encouraging existing trips on to publictransport eg. the local school run

• A wide variety of cycle routes• Dunsfold Park footpaths linking to

existing routes

• Restricted parking at Dunsfold Park• Incentives for eco-friendly vehicles

We intend to make a number of junctionimprovements as well to ensure that anynecessary car travel will be safer, lessdisruptive and more efficient. The mostsignificant of these will be a new roadlink from Dunsfold Park to the A281.

Parkland SchemeThis idea transforms the aerodrome into a landscaped park inspired by the grandeighteenth century tradition of CapabilityBrown and his contemporaries - famousexamples are Stourhead and Stowe and, in Surrey, Claremont and Virginia Water.

This English landscape tradition was, in its turn, influenced by the Classical buildings of Palladio and the romantic paintings of the Italian landscape by Claude Lorraine and others.

The Village - Lies on the north side of the lake encompassing the channel and basin,extending down to the restored Wey and Arun Canal

The Lake - The centrepiece is a serpentine lake

Streets, Lanes & Courtyards - Most of thehomes are arranged around a network oftraditional streets, pedestrian lanes and mewscourtyards. Most parking will be discreetlyhidden in rear courtyards, designed to givepriority to pedestrians

Lakeside Villas - A handful of larger housesand apartment 'villas’, partially hidden inwoodland, overlook the water

The Avenue - The natural landscape contrastswith a grand formal avenue along the line ofthe existing main runway

Market Square - The square and high street are lined with businesses,community facilities and shops with flatsabove. This street would be closed togeneral traffic and dedicated to buses,pedestrians and cyclists

Canal Marina - A marina links thecanal and lake and will be the settingfor waterside housing, moorings andrecreation

The Next StageWe would like to hearyour views and commentsabout our ideas for thefuture of Dunsfold Park,outlined in this leaflet.Feedback can be provided in the following ways:• By completing a questionnaire

• By providing comments online via our website, www.dunsfoldpark.co.uk

• By calling M&N Associates on 01483 415 915or Dunsfold Park Ltd on 01483 200 900

All comments received will be analysed and fed intothe development of a preferred masterplan. We willthen consider when to submit a planning application.

As our ideas move forward, we will continue toconsult local opinion and invite suggestions andcomments.

The Professional TeamArchitect and masterplanner

Pollard Thomas Edwards

Transport planning

Mott MacDonald

Landscape and ecology

Land Use Consultants

Sustainable utilities engineering

Fulcrum Consulting

Strategic planning

Strategic Planning Advice Ltd

Town planning

Roger Tym & Partners

Community relations consultants

M&N Associates

Government relations

Citigate Public Affairs

Local residents at the first Dunsfold Park public consultation

Jim McAllister at the first Dunsfold Park public consultation

The provision of much needed housing will• Reduce the unmet demand for

affordable housing• Meet the needs of all ages particularly

young people and first time buyers• Improve the supply of labour for local

firms and services

New services and more customers for existing services• A new primary school in this part of Cranfold• Services for the elderly • More customers for shops, services

and pubs in the Cranfold area• More users for public services e.g. the

Village Hospital and improve their viability

Recreational and arts opportunities arising from• Support for the restoration of the

Wey & Arun Canal• The creation of water bodies and a marina• The devotion of half of the airfield to

recreation, landscape and nature conservation

• The creation of an aviation museum

The local economy will benefit from• Affordable, high quality, secure premises

for new and relocating businesses• The potential to create at least 2000 new jobs• On-site CHP (combined heat and power)

plant creating a market for local woodland products

• New business in environmental and high-technology fields

Much better access for all including• Improved bus services• Networks of footpaths and cycle ways• High-speed internet access

Opportunities• To develop healthier lifestyles• To deliver caring services more effectively• To re-integrate urban and rural living• To market healthy food products through

the Surrey Hills brand

How this will benefit local people

WAVERLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL

SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PLAN

DOCUMENT

PROPOSED DUNSFOLD PARK NEW SETTLEMENT

Representation by Dunsfold Park Ltd (Representor 101)

Prepared by Land Use Consultants

November 2006

43 Chalton Street London NW1 1JD

Tel: 020 7383 5784 Fax: 020 7383 4798

[email protected]

SDPNT Poe 1.10 - DP Ltd - LDF Sustain. - Extracts

Dunsfold Park Ltd Consultations

1. DPL has also carried out its own consultations on the future of Dunsfold Park:

• In February 2006 DPL consulted on possible futures for the site (continuing aviation, expansion of commercial uses, do nothing/break up of the site or new settlement): 520 people visited an exhibition in Cranleigh and 180 completed questionnaires, among whom 54% put a new settlement as their first preference. Alternative plans for a new settlement were presented.

• In June 2006 a further public consultation was carried out on the preferred Master Plan and on more detailed elements of the plan.

• In September 2006 DPL’s proposals were presented to representatives of Guildford and Horsham Borough Councils, South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA), Government Office for the South East and the South East of England Regional Assembly (SEERA) and to Waverley’s Development Control Consultative Forum, at which developers set out their proposals at the pre-application stage to Councillors and members of interested groups, all of whom were given the opportunity to comment and question.

• DPL maintain regular contact with all the local parish councils on the progress of their proposals.

• DPL has met with many parties interested in the development of a sustainable new settlement for example housing associations, local schools, local GP’s, the Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust, local traders in Cranleigh and on Dunsfold Park, arts and higher education groups, the County Council (on transport issues and planning generally) and the Forestry Commission.

SDPNT Poe 1.11 - Bramley 27 Jul 06 - Traffic Mtg - Extracts

Dunsfold Park Forum

13th September 2006

Extracts

• Alfold Parish Council, Mr Nik Pidgeon • Dunsfold Parish Council, Mr Alan Ground • Bramley Parish Council, Mr Scattergood

1


Alfold Parish Council, Mr Nik Pidgeon: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Good evening, I’m the Vice Chairman of Alfold Parish Council and I've come here to speak on their behalf. I’m afraid my delivery won’t be as smooth as Ian McDonald’s because I’ve really been making notes as we go along. I didn’t know what their presentation would be although to be fair to them, much of what they have said has been said before. The Council are pleased to be able to speak to the forum and they accept that the purpose of this forum as outlined is not a pre-determination and there are still matters to be addressed. But clearly there are matters that occur to the Council that should be addressed. They have occurred to the Council before and they remain, unfortunately, still to be addressed. The first and major item as both set out in the planning officer’s outline and Ian McDonald’s response to some extent, is the big question, why should there be the exception to the current rules and allow a development at Dunsfold of this type. As has been stated, it’s not in a growth area, it’s not in the development plan, nor is it in the proposals. The Council, when considering planning applications, have to look at the position as it is now, not as it might be in the future, which is unascertainable and I think that’s accepted by Dunsfold. It says the situation may change as its application is being progressed. It may change either way, the whole position is not easily ascertainable. If the policy does change then of course any application would have to be looked at in the light of the policy at the time. But also at that time it would then be easier to consider and compare all possible sites which might comply with the new policies rather than looking at this in isolation. The Council remain to be convinced that so far as Dunsfold and a development of this magnitude warrants being an exception to the rule. If that hurdle is overcome one has to look in a little more detail and the two main questions that Alfold are considering are generally the infrastructure of the site and the area and although I note that Ian says it’s a stand-alone site, it’s very much adjacent to Alfold and the majority of the building would be within the Alfold Parish Council envelope and therefore the Parish Council and village have to consider it accordingly. The question of the infrastructure. One looks at the sustainability and that has to stand the test of time and the points that have been made employment, the points that are made about price structure and the points that are made about traffic, although that’s a separate issue, when examined closely, don’t stand the test of time. They may succeed for a short period of time or possibly for the first generation but thereafter history shows that they won’t. We’ve heard figures on employment but that seems to assume that, as I understand it, the existing employees of Dunsfold are either going to move onto the site or are not going to be employed and that there will be a massive take up in Cranleigh. There are a lot of other areas sourcing Cranleigh for employment. The price structure and affordability and limitation on price structure. The Council will be aware of the difficulty of maintaining that through first and second sales, naturally the houses revert to the market price. I listened to and applaud the idea of the resource efficiency, and that's on a technical basis they can’t really answer, but I don’t see it as completely exceptional as in my experience councils very often when looking at any development of this type are looking for recycling plans, grey water, etc., to be brought into account.

2


The third important issue and a prime issue for Alfold village, is the traffic consequences and the transport. With the current increased use of the site over the last few years it has brought the traffic situation in Alfold village to crisis point. It’s completely saturated. The village has heavy international lorries with trailers going through roads which weren’t designed for them and reaching the current road structure of a difficult junction which is causing gridlock. It’s mentioned that in due course there will be direct access to the A281 but it’s not there at the moment and the Council would have to consider that point in great detail. And I have to say I have some scepticism on the serious ability to in the long term reduce the extra amount of traffic that would be bound to be generated by 2600 homes that are proposed. Some of the plans are laudable but whether they would stand the test of time and again I say whether they would break down after the first or second generation. The inevitable increase in traffic that has happened and will happen if a development of this nature goes ahead, has a knock on effect on the A281 but I think my colleagues at Bramley who will be speaking later, and elsewhere, will be able to explain that in more detail. And I know that in previous applications the councils have considered that. Those are the three main issues that Alfold feel remain to be addressed - why is this development an exception to the rule? We can see no reason why it should be. How will the infrastructure be available for this sort of development and how will the traffic issues be overcome, not just in the short term but in the long term? And until those issues can be properly addressed the Council remains convinced that a development would be inappropriate(?) Alan Ground of Dunsfold Parish Council: Thank you very much. Alan Ground, Dunsfold Parish Council. Nick and I have not been able to speak before this meeting but I can tell you that we would support all that he has said but I do want to add a few points. Dunsfold Parish Council, like other parish councils no doubt, do not reach conclusions on an application before it is submitted. But it is relevant at this forum to say that Dunsfold Parish Council has resolved to support as sound Waverley’s core strategy submission for the local development framework. That means we’ve supported a document which, and I’ll just pick out some points from it which are relevant, it adopts the preferred option, a hybrid of options 1 and 2, it rejects the new settlement, option 4, anywhere in the Borough, let alone on rural land in this location. It prefers development primarily to be located on previously developed urban land in sustainable locations of larger settlements around the area, around Waverley. Another point from the core policies which we are supporting is that CP4 Countryside says that the character and intrinsic qualities of countryside, in which of course the proposed settlement is going to be situated, will be protected for their own sake. And that is a repetition of the current provisions in the 2002 local plan. It then adds, ‘And an area action plan for Dunsfold Aerodrome will be prepared in the future’. Explaining the policy it rejects the idea of a comprehensively-planned settlement anywhere in the Borough and says, ‘Even if it were to be built on previously-developed land in the rural area, this option would conflict with the current structure plan in emerging regional planning policies. Now turning to the intention of the core policies to have an area action plan for this site, we understand Waverley’s timetable for the production of an area action plan for this site is that work upon it cannot start before the panel report on the South East Plan in Autumn 2007. So, the question is, why is it considered appropriate or a proper use of resources to put in an application now which is so far removed from current and proposed new policies and perhaps two years in advance of the Area Action Plan which the Waverley local planning authority has said it’s going to produce? We do not follow why that is being done now.

3


There are one or two other points I just want to make which I think I've got time to do. The point was made about the importance of affordable housing. We would say, as a village, and I think other towns and villages would say the same thing, that affordable housing is needed in each local community and it is not needed in an isolated new settlement. The whole point is to build up the communities with affordable housing to meet local need in those communities. And that’s what we’ve done in Dunsfold and are currently doing with a new affordable settlement. Another point I’m concerned about is exaggerated statements coming from Dunsfold Park. We know that the scoping report which Dunsfold Park sent into Waverley said that 71 per cent of respondents to the public consultation supported the idea of a new settlement as a first or second option. We also know from the press release at the time in June that in fact that 71 per cent consisted of 127 people. That was less than one-quarter of the people who were said by Dunsfold Park to have attended the consultation, 500 people. That was at the time. So, they said that in the scoping report repeating the figure of 71 per cent support as a first or second preference, but it’s a very small number of actual people and we were not even told at that point who, out of that 127, actually wanted the settlement as a first as opposed to a second option. I think we were told just now, which is why I said could you please repeat that, that a majority supported the new settlement out of the consultation. Well, I think unless there are new figures since the ones I’ve quoted from the press release issued by Dunsfold Park in June, I’m just puzzled by what this support actually is. A third point I wanted to mention was, there was shown up on the screen the quote from GOSE about possibly Government of the South East Office supporting the idea of a new settlement and reference was made to the windfall point. I would like to ask Waverley if they could explain this, whether in fact Dunsfold Park haven’t got the wrong end of the stick about that. I’m quoting from the core policies option 4, comment by Waverley in their core policies submission, in saying why they’re against a new development on this site they’ve added the point, ‘And moreover the Government Office has confirmed that the Council could not resist windfall housing within developed areas, even if it were to adopt this option’. So, I infer from that that doesn’t mean GOSE is supporting, that means GOSE is pointing out that if you go for this new settlement you cannot, as a local authority, resist windfall sites which come up for housing development. There was one other final point which concerns me. I heard again today that GOSE have commissioned Roger Tym as consultants. Now, we know that Roger Tym have been acting and advising Dunsfold Park so I’m afraid I’m very concerned that the Government of the South East has appointed as independent consultants an outfit which has actually been advising Dunsfold Park. I think that’s the end of my time. Bramley Parish Council, Mr Scattergood: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ve been asked to present this statement as the provisional stance being adopted by Bramley Parish Council prior to sight of the detailed planning application for development on the airfield site. This contains many of the points made in our presentation to the Development Control Forum last October. There have been no significant changes to circumstances since then, except that traffic on the A281 has increased. Although our parish boundary reaches almost to the perimeter of the airfield site, Bramley Village contains our largest settlement and this is four miles away. Our main concern is therefore with regard to infrastructure and traffic impact in particular.

4


Traffic is already the major issue for residents and businesses alike, regardless of whether this particular development or any other major one goes ahead. To put this into perspective, the sheer weight of traffic has increased over the last few years from around 13,000 vehicles a day to a reported 19,000 at Dunsfold Park’s own last official count, compared with our estimate of 18,000 last year and is now probably higher still. Also the type of vehicle has changed. There are now significantly more heavy good lorries along the A281, steadily crumbling some of our precious listed buildings in the conservation area around the High Street. The traffic problems caused by the narrowness of the High Street and the busy mini roundabout in the centre of the village are already unsustainable and can only get worse, regardless of Dunsfold. With this in mind Bramley has already been approached by Dunsfold Park management to discuss traffic issues, including those which might additionally arise as a result of their anticipated application. A set of six points was laid out for them to which they were invited to respond at a Parish Council meeting specifically convened for this purpose. Over 70 people attended on 27th July to hear their responses from which it became clear that DP management has still much ground work to complete before submission of the Environmental Impact Assessment, which we expect to address those issues. Three issues emerged which our Council felt needed more detail and which DP management agreed to go away and consider. DP felt they might explore the Downslink as a recognised traffic corridor. This is a much-loved facility for local people and any change of use from recreational - horses, cyclists, pedestrians all linking with Guildford - would be vigorously resisted, not least by the 150 or so properties that back onto it. How DP could realistically improve the bus services including prioritising them over traffic and with what impact? What solutions could be found to the existing over-capacity at peak times at the mini roundabout, acknowledge at the meeting by DP themselves? One further important issue did become clear at the meeting. The Rutland Group had no expectation of any pubic money being found from Government for infrastructure improvements. Any money would need to be found by the Group. This in turn would be dependent on scale and type of development allowed on the site. If there is insufficient scope for funding such improvements then the development would not take place. Mr McAllister declared any idea of a new relief road linking the A281 to the A3 as beyond even us. These developments have caused our Council to take stock of the situation and to conclude that, subject to the content of any major planning application, there should be no further development at any location within Waverley other than that already included in the local development framework and in strict accordance with the core strategy. We look forward to publication of the Environmental Impact Assessment annexed to the planning application but in the meantime have adopted a provision stance, based on our own assessment of the situation. Our conclusions are, the A281 is now full to capacity at various times each day and it is likely to become unsustainable as an arterial road in a very short time even without any significant new residential or commercial activity in the localities serviced by the road. It is therefore timely for Bramley Parish Council to work with all other relevant bodies to push for a wider review of the longer term infrastructure demands of the area. This situation must be addressed now as it will only be a matter of time until there is total gridlock. This inevitably affects other surrounding villages as drivers seek alternative routes. Large towns such as Guildford and Godalming need also to be involved as they too will be affected.

5


This review needs to be wide-ranging and should include such issues as a new relief road from Alfold through to the A3 or alternative relief routes around Bramley, but not so as to adversely impact upon other villages and larger settlements. Local road pricing is increasingly being mooted by central government and this too might prove to be answer, although we need to be careful that it does not have other adverse repercussions. In any event, this is several years away, even for motorways, tolls on which may perversely have adverse consequences for other routes. Until such a review has taken place and been considered by BPC we envisage rigorous resistance to any development beyond that already allowed for in the local development plan and core strategy. In the meantime any partial, short-term proposals such as those which might affect the Downslink, should also be resisted unless there is clear, demonstrable advantage to the vast majority of local Bramley residents. That advantage is not to be simply that development is enabled elsewhere. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

6

SDPNT Poe 1.12 - Bramley - PC News About DP Consultation

Friday, July 28, 2006

TRAFFIC- EFFECT OF DUNSFOLD AND OTHER ISSUES

PRESS RELEASE - PARISH COUNCIL MEETING ON TRAFFIC ISSUES Over 70 residents, some from local areas outside Bramley parish, attended a Parish Council meeting in Bramley last week to hear how the management of Dunsfold Park might address the traffic issues which could arise as a result of developments at Dunsfold Park Chairman Richard Gates opened the meeting, welcoming the opportunity to discuss these important issues, which the Council felt should be aired publicly at an early stage for the people in Bramley. He stressed that no conclusions would be reached by the Council at the meeting, and that these would follow in the normal way if a planning application is lodged. An essential part of this application would be an Environmental Impact Assessment, of which traffic would be a major part. Chief Executive Jim McAllister, and his support team, then outlined the initial findings of traffic surveys of movements along the A281, taken last November and then again in March. There was still much analysis to be done, but it did confirm that there were now around 19,000 vehicles a day going through Bramley. This was around 5,000 more than were using the road just a few years ago. Parish Councillors and the public then raised a number of questions, but there was some frustration that there seemed to still be much work still to be done by the Rutland Group on both the analysis of the statistics, and the possible solutions to alleviate the problems. However, it did become clear that the Rutland Group had no expectation of any public money being found from Government – any money for infrastructure improvements would need to be found by his Group. This, in turn, would be dependent upon the scale and type of development allowed on the site. If there was insufficient scope for funding essential supporting improvements, then development would not take place. Concerns were expressed about the possible effect on the A281 (and other local roads) of a large residential development at Dunsfold Park, and some disbelief was voiced over the practical possibility of restricting car ownership or use in any development. It was noted that there had been no consideration by Dunsfold Park of an alternative relief road to the A3. Mr McAllister said "this is beyond even us". Summing up, the Chairman identified three areas where further work was required to reassure the residents of Bramley:- clarification on the impact on the Downslink, if Dunsfold Park had ideas to exploit this "much-loved facility" through a light railway or guided bus system linking Guildford with Horsham; what bus improvement schemes were envisaged, and how would they impact on the A281; and what solutions could be put forward to alleviate the congestion at the mini-roundabout, which the traffic consultant had stated as being operating at over-capacity at peak hours already.

Friday, July 28, 2006 PARISH COUNCIL MEETING ON TRAFFIC ISSUES

Minutes of the Meeting of Bramley Parish Council held in the Village Hall on 27 July 2006, starting at 7.30pm. 85/06 PRESENT Mr Gates (Chairman), Mrs Bedford, Messrs. M Byham, J Compton, J May, P Scattergood, P Wadham and H Weijman. Mrs O’Connell had offered apologies for absence. 72 members of the public attended. 86/06 MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2006 were approved and signed, after a proposal by the Clerk to amend 80/06 (Dunsfold Park) in the light of the further points made by Mr Wadham, which had yet to be discussed in detail. These were agreed as follows:- Para. 3."The Parish Council discussed a paper which incorporated the following points:-" Para. 4."It was agreed that further discussion would be appropriate before the Council’s policy was agreed, but in the meantime a copy of the paper could be forwarded to DP management, with an invitation to continue with the 27 July meeting if they so wish". 87/06 REPLACEMENT FOR CLERK Mindful that the Council remained vulnerable whilst he continued to carry the workload of Estates and Hall management as well as that of the Clerk and RFO, the Clerk proposed that the process of finding a replacement should recommence, following the abortive attempt in early 2004. He reiterated that he would be happy to continue in the role of Assistant Clerk, carrying with it the Estates and Hall duties, which would make the standard post of Clerk and RFO more appealing. Members agreed, and requested that he restart the process as soon as possible. 88/06 DUNSFOLD PARK Mr Gates, Chairman, then opened the part of the meeting dealing with traffic by welcoming Mr McAllister and his team from Dunsfold Park, and expressing appreciation that they have spared the time to be at Bramley. The context of the meeting was that Dunsfold Park had previously expressed interest in discussing traffic issues with Bramley Parish Council. Both DP and Bramley PC recognise that most activities at DP have a traffic implication whether they are industrial activities, airport activities, large events or residential development. Both recognise that Bramley already has a traffic problem. Preliminary observations from a previous PC meeting had been passed to DP. These acted as a background framework for the discussion. The "ground rules" agreed were that the PC wished to discuss traffic issues as they affect Bramley. Inevitably given the proximity of a planning application for residential development there was some focus on that and its traffic implications. But the Parish Council had not called the meeting to give any opinion on the merits or otherwise of such a development - the PC will be invited to do so in course following the submission of a planning application. Therefore Parish Councillors concentrated solely on constructive and realistic comments related to Bramley’s traffic problems and DP was asked not to regard this meeting as an opportunity to talk up their development plans.

Mr McAllister thanked the Council for the opportunity to explore possible options for the alleviation of traffic generally through Bramley, though stressing that with no expectation of any Govt. money forthcoming, private finance could only be found commensurate with the extent of funding being generated from development at Dunsfold. His traffic management consultant then provided some early figures on the outcome of their traffic surveys, explaining that there was still much analysis to be done before the statistics could be fully interpreted and incorporated in the Environmental Assessment which would be part of the forthcoming planning application. Councillors were invited to ask relevant questions, from which it was established that:-

• costs of a monorail or guided bus service utilising the Downslink were roughly similar, but financial viability would be dependent largely on whether sufficient people would get out of their cars and use the service

• further work needs to be done on the survey statistics to determine how much traffic leaves the A281 at Shalford, as the mounting problem on the A281 would also have major repercussions at Guildford

• the baseline of 2800 traffic movements per day in and out of the airfield site, established when Bae closed, had not subsequently been exceeded, although it was accepted that the traffic mix had veered towards more commercial vehicles

• there has been no estimate of what the overall capacity of the A281 would be, although the capacity at the mini-roundabout in Bramley was already being exceeded at peak times

• enhanced bus services could provide some alleviation along the A281, but engineering solutions such as bus lanes would be difficult to install due to the narrow roadway in various places, especially in the village itself

• infrastructure improvements (including transport) would be legally binding, and would necessarily have to take place before staged development commenced; this might realistically take 15 to 20 years.

• there was no specific budget for infrastructure work, as it was dependent upon the level and type of development which was eventually approved.

The Chairman then called for the adjournment to allow the public to ask questions, through the Chair. Around 20 attendees, some of whom were from outside Bramley Parish, raised issues but many of them were frustrated as they had already been covered, in part, or were unanswerable as the DP management were still working on these issues themselves. The Chairman then summarised at the conclusion of the meeting areas where further study might be appropriate. These were:-

• further information as to how DP thought they might exploit the Downslink, as a recognised "traffic corridor", which was a much loved facility for local people (applause from the floor)

• how DP management could realistically improve the bus services, and with what impact

• what solutions could be found to the accepted current level of over-capacity at peak times at the mini-roundabout.

Mr McAllister agreed to take away these, and other issues raised, for further consideration and thanked the Council for the opportunity to assess the real concerns of local residents. The meeting closed at 9.45pm. Agreed and signed…………………………………….……Chairman, 10 August 2006.

SDPNT Poe 1.14 - Bramley Hunt Milton 17 Nov 07 - Extracts

Bramley Meeting about Dunsfold Park

Anne Milton MP and Jeremy Hunt MP

17 November 2007

Residents’ Comments - Extracts


Hascombe resident. I live in Hascombe. Jeremy [Hunt], I quite agree with you. I have two points. Let’s get the infrastructure services in place recognising the needs that are going to come. I’m not in favour of the Dunsfold Park new town, but wherever the developments are which are necessary, let’s get the infrastructure in place. The second point I’d make is this. It’s not just because we’re grey-haired here. I certainly have been here for 25 years, the vast majority of people I recognise here have also been in this area for 25 years plus. I am against new developers coming in who are in to make a development and a development profit. Chiddingfold resident. I'm a councillor from Chiddingfold and I’d just like to support this point about infrastructure. The reason Chiddingfold is very concerned about this is very simple. If you live in Dunsfold and you want to get a train up to London or if you want to go down to the south, you come through Chiddingfold because the only station is either in Milford or in Wickley. So, we have already a huge number of people whizzing through the village. We also are extremely concerned about the number of HGVs that will come through going the other way to build Dunsfold, because, for some unknown reason, we have a huge number of HGVs going through the village going off to Dunsfold already. So, we are absolutely concerned about the infrastructure. I quite honestly cannot believe that the proposal from Dunsfold Park that everybody will stay in Dunsfold Park is what will actually happen because I know they’re going to go up to London. If they go up to London they’ll either go through Cranleigh or they’ll go by train so infrastructure is absolutely crucial. Alfold resident. I think Alfold’s concerns are well-known, we already have problems with traffic. But it isn't just traffic, it’s the total infrastructure of the whole area. I find the kind of argument our colleague here has given us disturbing because he’s basically saying if we don’t have houses there we’ll get them somewhere else. This pits one community against another community, this generates Nimbyism, not accepting that there is a housing problem and how do we best serve it. I think I can only agree entirely with Chiddingfold and Hascombe, we do not have the infrastructure or hospitals or education at present. We all know that the South East has been somewhat strapped of money and we have not been able to develop our health and our education facilities as we would like. We cannot possibly take on one load of people in one small rural area. If we need housing it’s got to be more distributed. Bramley resident. This may have been a Freudian slip, but you actually said, you’d put your mouth where your money is. It may have been a Freudian slip but actually it was quite an interesting one because that to me epitomises what so much -- I’ve looked at your presentations over the past two years and I’m grateful that you’ve put those presentations forward, the last one was over in Cranleigh. But you still do not explain what precisely you’re going to spend the money on if the infrastructure is approved - the scale, the timetable. You talk grandly but please don’t keep repeating this magic that's in your mind that you can resolve these things with money because it isn’t, we’re people, we’ve got choice, and we don’t choose to have your development when you can’t explain what you’re going to put in it.

2


Bramley resident. I think we have to be very careful that the developers don’t filibuster our meetings for the simple reason that I have absolute certainty that the design within Dunsfold Park will be superb. There will be attractive houses, it will be environmentally-friendly and all the rest of it, and I'm sure the best brains will be used on that. But that doesn’t get us out of the simple area called traffics, and old-fashioned word. I’ve lived here 47 years, too, it’s an old-fashioned word, it’s the traffic. And it’s the traffic through Bramley and Alfold and the access to it. We all know quite simply that the roads already aren’t good enough. I remember years ago the long debate about the Bramley Bypass, you know, maybe that will occur again. But there are billions of pounds needed to improve the road system but that will destroy the countryside, so there we are. It’s not, as we might say, a problem that’s going to go away, but on the other hand we have to make sure that we preserve the countryside. It's as important to preserve the countryside in many ways as to provide housing. My solution to the housing is that maybe in Guildford they just build higher. That will bring a groan, too, I know, but I think greater intensity where this housing. Dunsfold resident. Jeremy, could I just support you and quote this because at the last meeting that was held here in Bramley I will quote Jim McAllister being asked, “Are you unprepared to say no cars?”, “Yes, that’s correct. Thirty per cent of the houses will have no cars at all.” “How?” “Because we will not providing car spaces.” That was said by Mr McAllister at the meeting. Dunsfold resident. I’ve lived in Dunsfold for merely 30 years but perhaps if I live long enough I might make 47. I’ve got two points. One is that I attended the Waverley meeting last week at which Mr McAllister or Mr McDonald, I’m not sure which, said that they had applied for this eco town status for Dunsfold. When he was questioned about surely that meant that under the rules that we’d been led to believe there’d be a minimum of 5,000 houses, not 2,600, I understood, I’m not sure if I understood correctly, that the response was no, they would stick at the 2,600 and that the Government would be asked to change their criteria. My question is, should the Government say, no, we won’t change the criteria but yes, we think this is a good area, are we now looking at a minimum of 5,000 for this to go ahead, or would it be shelved? The second point I have is on the traffic issue. Let alone whether the planning application is successful or not, there is a commitment to develop the commercial side from the current 700 jobs to 2,000. With that there will be obviously additional traffic created by that alone which will put further pressure on the existing congestion that we have. I just would finally say that as far as SEERA is concerned I entirely agree with what you said but then one good thing has come out of it, they did not endorse this plan for Dunsfold Park. Dunsfold resident. I’ve lived in Dunsfold for millions of years. What I do need to find out with his argument is that in essence we’re all here looking pretty ancient because we’ve stayed, and we moved here, as Roger said. When I first came into Dunsfold I got involved with the cricket and our greatest difficulty was actually find players. We either had to choose retired 50 year olds or 16 year olds, basically because the young were leaving the village. You couldn’t get anybody 18, 22, 24, there were schoolboys who would play in the holidays before they went off to university and that was that.

3


This idea that goes around that you’re actually enabling people to stay in the village is a load of rubbish. Most people want to leave the village, they want to go to Siberia, they want to go to the Middle East - I remember a family who used to go to the Middle East five months of the year and drive god knows what and make millions. Do we want to attract people into Dunsfold to go around mending lamp posts and cut the lawns, which they used to do when I first went there, that was where the young were. The only ones who stayed were basically doing service, working in agriculture or something like that. That’s gone by, those families don’t exist, the infrastructure, etc., etc. So, the young, this idea that you’re going to save all the young people around to say in Dunsfold, to say in this area, is a complete myth. When they get to a certain age they want to see the world, they don't want to stick around in Dunsfold which they’ve been doing for ages. And I think to lump loads of young people, thousands of them in a field, humans don't live in groups of that size. I think this is a dream. And I think if you look at his own promotional material and you open that page and you see that town sitting on that green field site, you think someone has lifted a bit of Tooting and stuck it straight on the page. I think it’s a crazy scheme and I think we should all be against it. Normal housing, letting people grow, live amongst the villages, do affordable housing it’s required locally, is fine. Hascombe resident. Look at the scale of the development because we’ve got 2,600 houses being built, which is probably 5,000 cars and probably 7,000 people and you want to compare that 7,000 of the population at the moment of Cranleigh, which I believe is about 11,000 and Dunsfold which is probably about 400 and Hascombe which is about 200, and the scale is very large. The traffic which it will produce has got to be thought about very carefully. We hear the schemes, about the Ultra system, and I think it’s up to Mr McAllister to produce figures about traffic flows, about how many people he thinks he can get off the roads with his systems. Bramley resident. I just make the point that we’ve seen so much -- I’m rather a stranger to this evening but I’ve lived in the same house here for 45 years. There seems so much idealism here. This group of people, are their lives going to be totally controlled on Dunsfold Aerodrome, are they going to be fuelled by what Mr McAllister says, have cars that McAllister has built? The whole thing is quite incredible. I mean, there will be a variety of people needing schools, garages, all the rest, that doesn’t seem to enter basically into consideration. And nor does this large imposition, as we’ve all said, on the whole area and the spokes that will run out of it in every direction.

4

SDPNT Poe 1.15 - DP Ltd Forum 13th Sept 06 - Extracts

DUNSFOLD PARK FORUM – PROPOSED NEW TOWN

Extracts

Speaker extracts:

• Nick Pigeon, Alfold Parish Council • Alan Ground, Dunsfold Parish Council • Philip Scattergood, Bramley Parish Council • Robin Ainsworth, Cranleigh Parish Council

13th September 2006

1


Nick Pigeon, Alfold Parish Council: Good evening, I’m the Vice Chairman of Alfold Parish Council and I've come here to speak on their behalf. I’m afraid my delivery won’t be as smooth as Ian McDonald’s because I’ve really been making notes as we go along. I didn’t know what their presentation would be although to be fair to them, much of what they have said has been said before. The Council are pleased to be able to speak to the forum and they accept that the purpose of this forum as outlined is not a pre-determination and there are still matters to be addressed. But clearly there are matters that occur to the Council that should be addressed. They have occurred to the Council before and they remain, unfortunately, still to be addressed. The first and major item as both set out in the planning officer’s outline and Ian McDonald’s response to some extent, is the big question, why should there be the exception to the current rules and allow a development at Dunsfold of this type. As has been stated, it’s not in a growth area, it’s not in the development plan, nor is it in the proposals. The Council, when considering planning applications, have to look at the position as it is now, not as it might be in the future, which is unascertainable and I think that’s accepted by Dunsfold. It says the situation may change as its application is being progressed. It may change either way, the whole position is not easily ascertainable. If the policy does change then of course any application would have to be looked at in the light of the policy at the time. But also at that time it would then be easier to consider and compare all possible sites which might comply with the new policies rather than looking at this in isolation. The Council remain to be convinced that so far as Dunsfold and a development of this magnitude warrants being an exception to the rule. If that hurdle is overcome one has to look in a little more detail and the two main questions that Alfold are considering are generally the infrastructure of the site and the area and although I note that Ian says it’s a stand-alone site, it’s very much adjacent to Alfold and the majority of the building would be within the Alfold Parish Council envelope and therefore the Parish Council and village have to consider it accordingly. The question of the infrastructure. One looks at the sustainability and that has to stand the test of time and the points that have been made employment, the points that are made about price structure and the points that are made about traffic, although that’s a separate issue, when examined closely, don’t stand the test of time. They may succeed for a short period of time or possibly for the first generation but thereafter history shows that they won’t. We’ve heard figures on employment but that seems to assume that, as I understand it, the existing employees of Dunsfold are either going to move onto the site or are not going to be employed and that there will be a massive take up in Cranleigh. There are a lot of other areas sourcing Cranleigh for employment. The price structure and affordability and limitation on price structure. The Council will be aware of the difficulty of maintaining that through first and second sales, naturally the houses revert to the market price. I listened to and applaud the idea of the resource efficiency, and that's on a technical basis they can’t really answer, but I don’t see it as completely exceptional as in my experience councils very often when looking at any development of this type are looking for recycling plans, grey water, etc., to be brought into account.

2


The third important issue and a prime issue for Alfold village, is the traffic consequences and the transport. With the current increased use of the site over the last few years it has brought the traffic situation in Alfold village to crisis point. It’s completely saturated. The village has heavy international lorries with trailers going through roads which weren’t designed for them and reaching the current road structure of a difficult junction which is causing gridlock. It’s mentioned that in due course there will be direct access to the A281 but it’s not there at the moment and the Council would have to consider that point in great detail. And I have to say I have some scepticism on the serious ability to in the long term reduce the extra amount of traffic that would be bound to be generated by 2600 homes that are proposed. Some of the plans are laudable but whether they would stand the test of time and again I say whether they would break down after the first or second generation. The inevitable increase in traffic that has happened and will happen if a development of this nature goes ahead, has a knock on effect on the A281 but I think my colleagues at Bramley who will be speaking later, and elsewhere, will be able to explain that in more detail. And I know that in previous applications the councils have considered that. Those are the three main issues that Alfold feel remain to be addressed - why is this development an exception to the rule? We can see no reason why it should be. How will the infrastructure be available for this sort of development and how will the traffic issues be overcome, not just in the short term but in the long term? And until those issues can be properly addressed the Council remains convinced that a development would be inappropriate(?) Alan Ground, Dunsfold Parish Council: Nick and I have not been able to speak before this meeting but I can tell you that we would support all that he has said but I do want to add a few points. Dunsfold Parish Council, like other parish councils no doubt, do not reach conclusions on an application before it is submitted. But it is relevant at this forum to say that Dunsfold Parish Council has resolved to support as sound Waverley’s core strategy submission for the local development framework. That means we’ve supported a document which, and I’ll just pick out some points from it which are relevant, it adopts the preferred option, a hybrid of options 1 and 2, it rejects the new settlement, option 4, anywhere in the Borough, let alone on rural land in this location. It prefers development primarily to be located on previously developed urban land in sustainable locations of larger settlements around the area, around Waverley. Another point from the core policies which we are supporting is that CP4 Countryside says that the character and intrinsic qualities of countryside, in which of course the proposed settlement is going to be situated, will be protected for their own sake. And that is a repetition of the current provisions in the 2002 local plan. It then adds, ‘And an area action plan for Dunsfold Aerodrome will be prepared in the future’. Explaining the policy it rejects the idea of a comprehensively-planned settlement anywhere in the Borough and says, ‘Even if it were to be built on previously-developed land in the rural area, this option would conflict with the current structure plan in emerging regional planning policies. Now turning to the intention of the core policies to have an area action plan for this site, we understand Waverley’s timetable for the production of an area action plan for this site is that work upon it cannot start before the panel report on the South East Plan in Autumn 2007. So, the question is, why is it considered appropriate or a proper use of resources to put in an application now which is so far removed from current and proposed new policies and

3


perhaps two years in advance of the Area Action Plan which the Waverley local planning authority has said it’s going to produce? We do not follow why that is being done now. There are one or two other points I just want to make which I think I've got time to do. The point was made about the importance of affordable housing. We would say, as a village, and I think other towns and villages would say the same thing, that affordable housing is needed in each local community and it is not needed in an isolated new settlement. The whole point is to build up the communities with affordable housing to meet local need in those communities. And that’s what we’ve done in Dunsfold and are currently doing with a new affordable settlement. Another point I’m concerned about is exaggerated statements coming from Dunsfold Park. We know that the scoping report which Dunsfold Park sent into Waverley said that 71 per cent of respondents to the public consultation supported the idea of a new settlement as a first or second option. We also know from the press release at the time in June that in fact that 71 per cent consisted of 127 people. That was less than one-quarter of the people who were said by Dunsfold Park to have attended the consultation, 500 people. That was at the time. So, they said that in the scoping report repeating the figure of 71 per cent support as a first or second preference, but it’s a very small number of actual people and we were not even told at that point who, out of that 127, actually wanted the settlement as a first as opposed to a second option. I think we were told just now, which is why I said could you please repeat that, that a majority supported the new settlement out of the consultation. Well, I think unless there are new figures since the ones I’ve quoted from the press release issued by Dunsfold Park in June, I’m just puzzled by what this support actually is. A third point I wanted to mention was, there was shown up on the screen the quote from GOSE about possibly Government of the South East Office supporting the idea of a new settlement and reference was made to the windfall point. I would like to ask Waverley if they could explain this, whether in fact Dunsfold Park haven’t got the wrong end of the stick about that. I’m quoting from the core policies option 4, comment by Waverley in their core policies submission, in saying why they’re against a new development on this site they’ve added the point, ‘And moreover the Government Office has confirmed that the Council could not resist windfall housing within developed areas, even if it were to adopt this option’. So, I infer from that that doesn’t mean GOSE is supporting, that means GOSE is pointing out that if you go for this new settlement you cannot, as a local authority, resist windfall sites which come up for housing development. There was one other final point which concerns me. I heard again today that GOSE have commissioned Roger Tym as consultants. Now, we know that Roger Tym have been acting and advising Dunsfold Park so I’m afraid I’m very concerned that the Government of the South East has appointed as independent consultants an outfit which has actually been advising Dunsfold Park. I think that’s the end of my time. Philip Scattergood, Bramley Parish Council: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’ve been asked to present this statement as the provisional stance being adopted by Bramley Parish Council prior to sight of the detailed planning application for development on the airfield site. This contains many of the points made in our presentation to the Development Control Forum last October. There have been no significant changes to circumstances since then, except that traffic on the A281 has increased. Although our parish boundary reaches almost to the perimeter of the airfield site, Bramley Village contains our largest settlement and this is four miles away. Our main concern is therefore with regard to infrastructure and traffic impact in particular.

4


Traffic is already the major issue for residents and businesses alike, regardless of whether this particular development or any other major one goes ahead. To put this into perspective, the sheer weight of traffic has increased over the last few years from around 13,000(?) vehicles a day to a reported 19,000 at Dunsfold Park’s own last official count, compared with our estimate of 18,000 last year and is now probably higher still. Also the type of vehicle has changed. There are now significantly more heavy good lorries along the A281, steadily crumbling some of our precious listed buildings in the conservation area around the High Street. The traffic problems caused by the narrowness of the High Street and the busy mini roundabout in the centre of the village are already unsustainable and can only get worse, regardless of Dunsfold. With this in mind Bramley has already been approached by Dunsfold Park management to discuss traffic issues, including those which might additionally arise as a result of their anticipated application. A set of six points was laid out for them to which they were invited to respond at a Parish Council meeting specifically convened for this purpose. Over 70 people attended on 27th July to hear their responses from which it became clear that DP management has still much ground work to complete before submission of the Environmental Impact Assessment, which we expect to address those issues. Three issues emerged which our Council felt needed more detail and which DP management agreed to go away and consider. DP felt they might explore the Downslink as a recognised traffic corridor. This is a much-loved facility for local people and any change of use from recreational - horses, cyclists, pedestrians all linking with Guildford - would be vigorously resisted, not least by the 150 or so properties that back onto it. How DP could realistically improve the bus services including prioritising them over traffic and with what impact? What solutions could be found to the existing over-capacity at peak times at the mini roundabout, acknowledge at the meeting by DP themselves? One further important issue did become clear at the meeting. The Rutland Group had no expectation of any pubic money being found from Government for infrastructure improvements. Any money would need to be found by the Group. This in turn would be dependent on scale and type of development allowed on the site. If there is insufficient scope for funding such improvements then the development would not take place. Mr McAllister declared any idea of a new relief road linking the A281 to the A3 as beyond even us. These developments have caused our Council to take stock of the situation and to conclude that, subject to the content of any major planning application, there should be no further development at any location within Waverley other than that already included in the local development framework and in strict accordance with the core strategy. We look forward to publication of the Environmental Impact Assessment annexed to the planning application but in the meantime have adopted a provision stance, based on our own assessment of the situation. Our conclusions are, the A281 is now full to capacity at various times each day and it is likely to become unsustainable as an arterial road in a very short time even without any significant new residential or commercial activity in the localities serviced by the road. It is therefore timely for Bramley Parish Council to work with all other relevant bodies to push for a wider review of the longer term infrastructure demands of the area. This situation must be addressed now as it will only be a matter of time until there is total gridlock. This inevitably affects other surrounding villages as drivers seek alternative routes. Large towns such as Guildford and Godalming need also to be involved as they too will be affected. This review needs to be wide-ranging and should include such issues as a new relief road from Alfold through to the A3 or alternative relief routes around Bramley, but not so as to adversely impact upon other villages and larger settlements. Local road pricing is

5


increasingly being mooted by central government and this too might prove to be answer, although we need to be careful that it does not have other adverse repercussions. In any event, this is several years away, even for motorways, tolls on which may perversely have adverse consequences for other routes. Until such a review has taken place and been considered by BPC we envisage rigorous resistance to any development beyond that already allowed for in the local development plan and core strategy. In the meantime any partial, short-term proposals such as those which might affect the Downslink, should also be resisted unless there is clear, demonstrable advantage to the vast majority of local Bramley residents. That advantage is not to be simply that development is enabled elsewhere. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Robin Ainsworth, Cranleigh Parish Council: My name is Robin Ainsworth and I am Clerk to the Cranleigh Parish Council’s planning committee. The Parish Council is aware of the very great need for homes in this area and has viewed with interest the proposals put forward so far by the Rutland Group. We have considered information previously made to us by the Rutland Group, together with the results of local public consultations - a public meeting at Bramley and previous development control consultative forums. We have very serious concerns regarding the impact that a development of 2,600 new dwellings together with an increased number of businesses intended to provide employment opportunities for the new residents will have on Cranleigh and the surrounding villages. As the nearest village of any size close to Dunsfold Park, Cranleigh is regularly mentioned in the proposals that have so far been made available. And there is an implied assumption that Cranleigh and its present infrastructure will comfortably accommodate this proposed development. We do not believe this to be the case. Our excellent facilities for shopping, car parking, education, health and social care, sports and leisure, etc., do at present cater for there needs not only of the 12,000 residents of Cranleigh but the visiting residents of Ewhurst, Ellens Green, Dunsfold, Alfold, Rudgwick and several villages south of the county border. However, the addition of a totally new village in population terms nearly four times the size of Dunsfold will be unable to cope and the detrimental affect on those facilities will seriously impact the qualify of life presently enjoyed by local residents. We believe that should this development proceed there will be a population increase in excess of 7,000 calculated against the proposed 2,600 dwellings, each accommodating two adults and an average of 1.4 children. Added to that, there would also be a considerable number of visitors who might need to be accommodated. We understand that the proposals may include an additional primary school but we believe the existing secondary school, Glebelands, is running close to capacity and any major increase in pupil numbers would need to be accommodated elsewhere, possibly in Guildford. Our existing utilities including gas, electricity, water and sewerage are already under some pressure and we wonder whether the Rutland Group has considered how the service needs of 2,600 new homes and the increased number of businesses will be provided. We do of course have in mind the present difficulties of Thames Water utilities following the hot, dry summer. A development of this size would only exacerbate an already difficult situation. As regards existing health and social care, no doubt the Rutland Group are aware that our existing village hospital is under threat of closure and it is by no means certain that the new village hospital will be built. The 14 community beds and the day hospital have already been closed bringing problems for our local elderly and infirm residents. A proposal currently being considered by the Guildford and Waverley primary care trust and the strategic health authority could result in the closure of acute hospitals such as the Royal Surrey in Guildford and St. Richard’s in Chichester. Should this happen could our diminished health services cope with an additional 7,000 people?

6


Traffic associated with a development of this size will have a serious impact on local roads and the surrounding villages. Many of our local roads are relatively narrow country lanes with sharp bends, already inappropriate for the levels of traffic using them. Even the A281, the one major through route between Guildford and Horsham, often cannot accommodate existing traffic levels, particularly now that national and international transport companies allow their 38 ton articulated vehicles guided by GPS systems to avoid the frequent jams on the accepted major routes such as the M25. Already both Bramley and Cranleigh suffer from constant traffic jams and the inconvenience of steady streams of large HGVs through their high streets. In addition to the traffic generated by the residents, employees and service vehicles on this proposed development, there will be many additional people wanting to visit friends and relatives on the site. At a recent meeting in Bramley it was suggested by the Rutland Group that car ownership could be restricted for people purchasing properties on the Dunsfold Park site, although how this could be implemented we find difficult to understand. However, even if this were possible, we doubt that any such restriction could be carried forward when homes are sold on and it would certainly be impossible to restrict the many visitors and tradesmen entering the site from using their cars. Cranleigh enjoys a number of recreational facilities including those for our young people but these would be insufficient to cope wit the needs of so many additional residents living close by and the Parish Council is unaware of much in the way of such leisure facilities being proposed within the Dunsfold site. Cranleigh and the surrounding villages already have problems with some young people who have difficulty finding things to do in the evenings and with little or no facilities planned for the younger generation of Dunsfold Park we will likely see an increase in the vandalism which disappointingly occurs from time to time. Finally, there is an implied suggestion that the Rutland Group may try to use the Downslink to facilitate the movement of residents between Dunsfold Park and Cranleigh. We would be very concerned that this excellent leisure facility, much enjoyed by local people, might become a major traffic route. Thank you for inviting Cranleigh Parish Council to contribute to this forum.

7

SDPNT Poe 1.16 - DP Ltd Forum 7th Nov 07 - Extracts

Dunsfold Park Forum

7th November 2007

Extracts

• Mike Green, SCC Highways • Barry Myres, SDPNT • Alan Ground, Dunsfold Parish Council • Colin Fraser, Alfold Parish Council • John Anderson, Hambledon Parish Council • Peter Wadham, Bramley Parish Council


Mike Green, SCC Highways Thank you chair and given the time I will be brief. Some of you have heard me speak on this before so I will not repeat that. All that I will say is that Surrey County Council from the transportation point of view are just one of many consultees in a process such as this and we give very careful assessment to both planning proposals and indeed the final planning applications as they come forward. In respect of proposals at Dunsfold Aerodrome or Dunsfold Park as it is now being called, we will be looking at it from two points of view. First of all we will be looking at the traditional safety and capacity issues and we have to satisfy ourselves and indeed satisfy more fundamentally more fundamentally the members of Waverley Borough Planning Committee that the proposals can be met without detriment to the existing and future users of the highway and wider transport networks. We need to ensure that a safe means of access to the site can be achieved, and that any intensification of junctions affected by increased traffic would not lead to increased safety and capacity issues. And we know that there are very significant issues potentially at Bramley on the A281, but there are other communities and other links all around the 360 degrees of the compass that equally will have to be looked at. So, it is not just the A281 through Bramley. Sometimes, increased delays can lead to increased safety risk, so we need to pay particular care and attention there. Additionally, there might be issues relating to the amenity and environment impacts of the traffic and any works required to accommodate them. Account is taken of environmental impacts and mitigation or scheme changes are negotiated accordingly. It will, however, ultimately, be for the planning authority, i.e., the members here tonight, to be satisfied that the environmental and amenity aspects are acceptable. The second, much wider area that needs also to be addressed from the transportation point of view is how the proposals relate to the compliance with policy. You’ve heard quite a bit about that tonight. Policy in transportation terms as well as in planning terms is guided by the regional spatial strategy, planning policy statements, and the development plan. Dunsfold Park Ltd. will have to demonstrate the degree to which their proposals comply or fail on them. From the County’s point of view, we will need to test their work against that policy and in so doing we will be setting them extremely high levels to demonstrate beyond doubt, as they have said tonight, that they have achieved such a level. This must not only be demonstrable at the time of the application, but more importantly, deliverable in reality for the perpetuity of the development. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman: Thank you very much. Next, we have Mr Myers from SDPNT, Stop Dunsfold Park New Town. Mr Myers, Stop Dunsfold Park New Town campaign: Thank you, Mr Chairman. That’s exactly it, Stop Dunsfold Park New Town. Little point in trying to work around that subject, clearly we’re here as a group to actually endeavour to stop this development. I thought it probably appropriate just to edit the highlights of our comments of the Examination in Public of the South East Plan. I think it’s probably important that people hear our views to summarise very briefly, bearing in mind our six minutes.

2


The key issue here has to be one of location and to be frank, it doesn’t matter how you address a particular proposal, with bio-mass, with eco-friendly system, it’s in the wrong location. There is no doubt that Waverley had the ability over the last 30 years to provide their housing allocation within their existing urban areas. They indicated that they might need to release some limited fringe sites around the settlements. But quite clearly in terms of sustainability that is the right approach, quite clearly the right approach. If you've got existing urban areas then those are the places that should be looked at first and foremost for the housing provision. If we turn to the specifics of Dunsfold, there are clearly serious shortcomings in its location and having heard the presentation today, I could pick up quite a number of very specific issues. A clear relation to providing fuel locally, I cannot imagine for the life of me hacking down woodland locally throughout Surrey to provide the fuel for certain facilities there. It doesn’t matter how you dress it up, there are shortcomings. In terms of access, the road network in the area is poor and for most of you who live in the area, you know it’s the case. It’s not a matter of being too bad at Bramley, Bramley is a bottleneck, Hascombe is a bottleneck, and if you push in another 2,600 houses in that particular area, regardless of the facilities in the future for eco-friendly means of transport, the facts of life are, the average person will still use a car to some degree and to actually say the car will be largely eliminated, in our view, is an absolute nonsense. Mr Beeching did away with the railways at Cranleigh. It’s admittedly beyond the Green Belt, but only just. It is almost ring fenced by the Area of Great Landscape Value. It has sites of Special Scientific Interest and other ecologically-sensitive areas around it. And to the east it has substantial areas that are liable to flooding. So, in terms of its location and in its characteristics, it’s poor. If you have a site which already has a capacity for 2,000 jobs and you add to that a further 2,600 houses, that is going to generate a lot of movement as I said earlier. The local road network is very difficult. The main road, the 281, as we all know, is already well overloaded in the peak hours. And it’s northwards that a lot of the traffic will move because it will be attracted towards London. Whatever is said about the local jobs, there will be an attraction to move outwards from this development. And it will certainly be a major issue into the connections towards the A3. I clearly believe that the regional strategy did adopt the right approach and that new settlement concept has no place, certainly at Dunsfold. Thank you, Chairman. Alan Ground, Chairman of Dunsfold Parish Council since 2003. I think, although you said it was the fourth forum, this is the third one on this particular topic. There was one in relation to a multiple application process. The basic proposition and issues remain the same. I last spoke on this topic on behalf of the Parish Council at the forum on 13 September 2006. I will not, you’ll be glad to hear, repeat the points I made then, they are available on the Council’s website. By last year’s forum, however, the proposal for a new settlement had actually failed to find favour with Waverley, who had rejected it as part of their then draft core strategy. Dunsfold Parish Council, who supported Waverley’s position, the councils of the so-called Cranfold Cluster, which the applicant claims it would benefit, those and others who pointed out the proposal was against all current plans and proposals at national, regional, county and local level.

3


Also the draft South East Plan at that stage which had been submitted to Government in March 2006, contained no support for such a settlement or its need within Waverley. At this year’s forum I will merely make some observations about the current position and pose some questions. It’s difficult to react within minutes of hearing a submission and, of course, the Parish Council does not have a collective view on any subject until it has met to consider the proposition. Also, I should mention that we have not privileged to have our meeting yet with Dunsfold Park, we have that tomorrow. Since last year, a panel of independent inspectors appointed by the Secretary of State has conducted an Examination in Public of the draft South East Plan over a period of five months. In the course of the Examination in Public, Waverley and the applicant made submissions about the applicant’s proposal. Mr McDonald said the inspectors got the thing wrong as far as they were concerned. However, it seems to me clear from reading their submission to the inspectorate, and I have a copy here, that basically they were seeking the inspectors to seriously examine the development capacity of Dunsfold Park. Waverley repeated its views about unsustainability of the location, absence of railway links, road access, traffic bottlenecks to the north and south which could not easily be quickly resolved. The detailed submission made by Dunsfold Park led to the inspectors to describe it broadly as, “A proposal for a sustainable development of a cluster of rural settlements, including large-scale, mixed use development on the Dunsfold Aerodrome site and new transport links to Cranleigh, with live work units and a substantial element of affordable housing provision for local people and accommodation for over 50s”. Question 1, is the proposal really one, to quote the inspectors, of “a cluster of rural settlements” rather than a settlement on the aerodrome? If so, what are the details and implications of that cluster? If it’s not the correct description, why were the proposals so described by, or even to, the inspectors? The Inspectors’ report was published on 29 August. They conclude, “In our view, the proposal for about 2,500 dwellings and about 2,000 jobs at Dunsfold Park would seriously unbalance the regional strategy and will be likely to remain unsustainable. The area is relatively remote from service centres, public transport accessability and the local road network would not be capable of being improved to an appropriate level, and it would be difficult to secure the level of self-containment that might overcome these disadvantages. Accordingly, we would not recommend the scale of development proposed at this location”. The final South East Plan report will not be published until Autumn 2008. There will then follow the production, as I understand it, of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy, which we understand is to be followed by a site-specific Area Action Plan, at least that’s what I’ve understood until now. Perhaps the Waverley officers could comment on the sequence and timing of the LDF/Core Strategy Area Action Plan. Dunsfold Park told the inspectors they would be pressing for the new settlement scheme “to be taken through the core strategy and then be subject to a planning application”, stating they preferred that to an Area Action Plan which would add delay. Question 2, since the core strategy may not be in place for perhaps two years, why is Dunsfold Park proposing to pre-empt the Core Strategy Area Action Plan by a planning application this year, given that they told the inspectors that a planning application would follow the core strategy?

4


Question 3, how will Dunsfold Park overcome each defect in sustainability listed above by Waverley and by the inspectors, and how will they make a case for the proposal to be treated as an exception to all existing planning policies? We note particularly that as yet there is still no offered solution for Bramley’s acute and insoluble problem, there is yet another promise of a future appraisal. Question 4, could Dunsfold Park explain why an eco townn bid is being made, given that it’s my understanding that that status will inter alia require a development of at least 5,000 dwellings? Question 5, finally, clearly what is proposed will involve, must involve, enlargement of the business park, but we’ve heard nothing about that. What is the position about that? Thank you very much. Colin Fraser, Alfold Parish Council. We very much welcome the opportunity that exists for this consultation process. But I would make the point at the outset that whilst the Parish Council has had general discussions about the Dunsfold Park plans, it has not formally sat down to discuss our position on it prior to the plan being submitted, so what I say should be taken in this context. First, not unnaturally, discussion is focused on Dunsfold Park but we think that Waverley has to, and will, consider other more suitable sites in the region in view of the already-congested traffic problems on the A281 north to Guildford and south to Horsham. Is it the best site in the region for such a development? Is the proposed development what Waverley thinks is suitable for this area? We think Dunsfold Park should be considered against the other alternative sites. Second, Dunsfold Park is loosely considered to be a brown field site, but we all know part of it is not. So, how does the proposed Dunsfold Park development fit in with the Waverley planning process and policies? Third and last, the main issues of concern are the traffic situation and the environment. As far as traffic is concerned, the proposals are very innovative and attractive but how practical are they? At best, we believe, they are likely to bring the additional traffic caused by the proposal, back to the current situation, which, as we all know, is totally unsatisfactory and partially cause by some of Dunsfold Park’s existing customers. Then the environment. There is a question of the economic viability of the various environmental schemes set against the number and mix of houses. Again, is it practical or will some of the innovative schemes be ‘delayed’? We heard last night for the first time a service charge will be levied on the residents to help pay for these schemes. What are they and how much will they be? Attention must be paid to the practical implementation of the scheme over the 10 years of the phasing. We cannot afford to make the current traffic problems on the A281 and the other roads worse over the next 10 years. In summary, we question for the region as a whole whether Dunsfold Park is the best site for such a development and whether the proposals are what Waverley really wants for this area. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

5


John Anderson, Chairman of Hambledon Parish Council. Like the previous speakers, we haven’t met as a council to review these proposals but we have knowledge of the previous proposals and rather than repeat what SDPNT, Dunsfold and Alfold have said, we support a lot of the points that have been made already tonight. There are three key issues for us. One, it seems to be totally contrary to all the planning policies of Waverley, Surrey and the South East region, so this very interesting scheme is just totally in the wrong place. Second, I think it’s naïve to expect that if all the development goes to Dunsfold no other developers in Waverley will ask for planning permissions in other places across the borough. So, I don’t see how you can stop other developers asking you, you instead of just having X, I think you’re going to get X plus Y. And, thirdly, a point made about the infrastructure, I'm involved in large-scale developments in London, they’re extremely expensive and often combined heat and power systems will not work until the entire development is filled, they’re not viable. A lot of these homes are affordable, 30, 40, 50, 60 per cent are affordable, and therefore the limit on houses which at the moment is 2,600, in years eight, nine and 10, there will be further applications for another 2,600, perhaps, to make these infrastructures affordable. Planning issue - wrong place. Development across the boroughs because you can’t stop it elsewhere and I would question the viability because of very heavy infrastructure costs. Wrong place. Peter Wadham, Chairman of Bramley Borough Council. What I want to say can easily be separated into three identifiable areas. Bramley, its location and why the Dunsfold Park proposals are of great significance to us. And we recognise that not everybody here will necessarily know the local circumstances, which many of the local residents will of course know. Secondly, the existing transport infrastructure through Bramley. And thirdly, Bramley Parish Council’s current views on the issues it has with this proposal. Bramley Parish sits aside the A281, the principle route linking Guildford and the A3 to the north, and Cranleigh, Horsham and Billingshurst to the south. Bramley has a population of some 3,340, the great majority of which live in the village. It has some 32 retail and service businesses, by far the largest local village concentration outside Cranleigh. Plus business parks that provide valuable local employment. St. Catherine’s School with 780 girls is situated in the centre of the village adjacent to the crossroads of the A281 and the Wonersh / Godalming route. The centre of Bramley is a conservation area with many listed buildings which, along with the residents, have to endure the debilitating daily wear and tear of over 18,000 cars and lorries negotiating the narrow, winding high street and imposing capacity requirements beyond the capabilities of the road and crossroads to absorb at busy times. The traffic problems on the A281 through Bramley are legendary and at the moment there is no effective alternate route for most of the vehicles. The parish boundary stretches southwards almost to the Dunsfold Park site, some four miles from the village centre. Any significant development to the south of Bramley, including Dunsfold Park, is going to have a catastrophic effect on the village and its road infrastructure in the absence of radical solutions being agreed and built before further residential or commercial construction commences. A bypass for Bramley was considered some years ago but the two flanking routes were dismissed by Surrey County Council Highways as being impractical, leaving a third alternative of going straight through the village, which was never pursued. Any such bypass would funnel traffic into Guildford and potentially exacerbate that town’s infrastructure problems.

6


The former railway line from Guildford to Cranleigh and Horsham, which passes close to the centre of Bramley, has been converted into a much-loved, popular and environmentally friendly Downs Link footpath and cycle track. The suggestion has been made this might provide the route for a driverless electric tramway system. Having listened to Dunsfold Park’s current reports and read the Ultra website, the Parish Council has not yet been persuaded that it has local resonance for reasons of range, cost and environmental benefits, let alone the loss of the Downs Link. The construction of 2,600 houses at the rate of perhaps 250 per annum, together with the development of the industrial units, the traffic associated with them, the movement of the proposed bio-fuels, the servicing of the occupied homes and the traffic generated by the residents, would inevitably create a major increase in the level of traffic along the A281 if the sole road proposal is for a spur from Dunsfold Park onto the A281. We shall look forward to seeing the environmental impact assessment and the transport infrastructure proposals in due course. Bramley Parish Council’s present view is that the benefits of further development at Dunsfold Park would (not?) offset the loss of one of Surrey’s essential green lungs and that they current transport and other infrastructure proposals are not sufficient to mitigate the potentially crippling effect of this and other developments of the rural community of Bramley. We are concerned that gridlock on the A281 would become a constant nightmare for all. If it is decided that the development might proceed, then a comprehensive strategic transport infrastructure assessment must be undertaken. We consider that such an assessment should address the possibility of a major road running from the A281 through Dunsfold Park to the A3, probably at Milford, which would provide some relief from through traffic, not only for Bramley, but also Shalford, Guildford and Godalming, funnelling much traffic from Dunsfold Park, Cranleigh, Horsham, and perhaps Billingshurst, onto the country’s dual carriageway arterial road network. These views were put forward at the last Dunsfold Park consultative forums and remain just as relevant today. Nothing has happened in the meantime to change our minds. Thank you, Mr Chairman. CPRE, Colin Hall. Thank you for allowing CPRE Surrey to address you this evening. I'm Colin Hall, I'm a member of the planning and campaigns committee of CPRE Surry and joint vice-chairman of the local district committee. The CPRE also addressed the previous forums and a lot has been said tonight which means I can be fairly brief. The countryside at and around Dunsfold Airfield, Dunsfold Park, is attractive and quite remote and in some ways it’s a quintessential English rural landscape. Truly rural landscapes such as this are rare in Surrey now, and in the South East, and they fully deserve the protection afforded to them from development and planning policies, those are planning policies in the South East Plan, in the Surrey Structure Plan and in the local plan continued in the Local Development Framework. CPRE Surrey totally opposes the concept of a new settlement on this site. It would destroy attractive, high quality countryside which is in fact a candidate for inclusion in the Surrey Hills AONB following the Chris Burnett report, of which Waverley was one of the instigators. Such development would be unsustainable, despite what we’ve heard tonight. It would radically in our view and adversely affect the character of the neighbouring area, Cranleigh, Alfold and Bramley would rapidly lose all sense of being truly rural communities and soon become part of the Cranfold urban sprawl.

7


There’s also very high cost in solving the many infrastructure problems - transport, energy, water, drainage. To create what would be a substantial new settlement would be a very bad use of resources in order to achieve a small addition to the stock of subsidised and low-cost housing and a larger number of market price housing which is not necessarily needed in that location. It could be more adequately-provided elsewhere in the borough. I just want to comment on a few things which Dunsfold Park mentioned this evening. CPRE certainly does not accept that this site is a brown field site. The northern, industrial part of the site is, that’s fine, but the rest of it is brown field and I don’t think there is anything in PPS3 or any of the policies which suggests it is a brown field site. It’s also not a site with planning permission as an airfield and here I happened to find Mr Hartley’s comment at the EIP. He correctly described it, if I can just find the reference, was ‘an industrial site with ancillary aviation activities’. That’s the second point I wanted to point out. The third point is that at the EIP this issue was fully discussed, I’ve got the transcript here. Anyone who reads it, it was about Dunsfold Park, it wasn’t about eco towns or anything like that. I’m not going to quote it here because we haven’t got time. It was about Dunsfold Park and the panel considered Dunsfold Park and so did CPRE who was there and so did other organisations here, as well as Surrey County Council and, of course, Mr Hartley on behalf of Waverley Council. It certainly wasn’t the concept of eco towns or mini new towns. It was very specific. Also, I think we’ve head a lot of fine words tonight about eco friendly transport and drainage and it’s all very exciting to see society moving that way in the face of climate change and other challenges. But they’re fine words, are we really necessarily going to be certain that we can see them here in a town of 2,600 houses? Will the profit from the sale of those houses really be able to finance all of that? Fine words, but will there be delivery? I think finally I was going to cite the conclusion of the EIP panel but Dunsfold Parish Council have done so, but nevertheless I think they’re crucial words and I think they could be emphasised. “The proposal for 2,500 dwellings at Dunsfold Park would seriously unbalance the regional strategy and it would be likely to remain unsustainable. The area is relatively remote from service centres, public transport accessibility and the local road network would not be capable of being improved to an appropriate level and it would be difficult to secure the level of self-containment that might overcome these disadvantages.” Finally, I will just sum up one of the speakers at the EIP from the regional assembly. On the Dunsfold issue, I think the point that Stop Dunsfold [Park] New Town was said, “if it’s in the wrong location it’s in the wrong location” and I think this is a case of it being in the wrong location. Thank you.

8

SDPNT Poe 1.17 - Housing Statistics Estimates

Table 1 - Number of houses – 2001 Census data

Council / Parish Households Waverley Alfold 428 Bramley 1,364 Chiddingfold 1,088 Cranleigh 4,600 Dunsfold 396 Hambledon 314 Sub total 8,313 Share of Waverley 17.6% (All Waverley) (47,176) Chichester District Loxwood 536 Plaistow CP 701 Sub total 1,237 Total 9,550

Source: Office of National Statistics – 2001 census housing data

Table 2 - Waverley Net Editions

Period Houses 2001/02 174 2002/03 211 2003/04 218 2004/05 262 2005/06 250 2006/07 458 2007/08 255 Average (261)

Source: Waverley Borough Council | Annual Monitoring Report 2007-08 Calculation: If 17.6% is applied to the average net additions to Waverley total, approximately 46 houses would have been built annually in the parishes in Table 1 above. A best estimate of the number of houses for 2008 is 9,550 + (46 x 7 = 322) = 9,872, or rounded up to the nearest hundred, this would be 9,900.

SDPNT Poe 1.18 - WA-2008-0788 – Offs’ Report - Extracts

1


2


3

SDPNT Poe 1.19 - SDPNT Supporter Comments

SDPNT Supporter Comments Hundreds of supporters, mainly from the neighbouring towns and villages, have registered with the campaign. They range from those whose families have lived in the area for several generations to those who are still looking for a home in the area; and from 11 to 89 years old. Below we reproduce a sample of their comments.

"I find it staggering that such an area of outstanding beauty, bordering a conservation area, can be considered for such an unnecessary development as this. There is not a shortage of housing in this part of the country and it seems that the only purpose of constructing this new town, is purely commercial. It goes without saying, that roads in this area, already plagued with HGV traffic, in spite of road signs, leading to and through Hascombe, say "Unsuitable for HGV traffic" will become overburdened and, more importantly, dangerous to horse riders, car drivers and residents. I strongly oppose any development, such as that proposed."

Mr Richard Moore (Hascombe)

"I am particularly anxious to stop this development project. We are already fighting a housing development at the old Cranleigh Brickworks in Knowle Lane and there is a serious risk in my view that before we know it Cranleigh will become a "New Town" (Cranfold) and urban areas will start to encroach upon each other."

Mr David Cox (Cranleigh)

"A new town of this proportion would be disastrous for the area. 5,000+ cars, just imagine what it would be like at weekends."

Mr Brian Belchamber (Dunsfold)

"Totally agree with the issues raised here. This development is totally out of proportion and wrongly located. The infrastructure is not there to support so many houses and would lead to further developments in the area.

I am particularly concerned about the impact on traffic and water supplies in an area suffering from 2 two years of hose pipe ban. Traffic through Bramley on A281 and at the junction into Godalming on the Brighton Road is already at a standstill every morning during term time. The Brighton Road is a dangerous road in the winter when it's icy, and more traffic down this narrow winding road will lead to more accidents. There is already far too much traffic on the A281, so I can't imagine what it would be like with all these extra homes.

On top of this development, there are other, smaller developments being built around this area already as part of the government's plan to build more new homes. Adding the new town at Dunsfold and plans for new homes around other surrounding villages together and this area will be deadlocked with traffic within 10 years and suffering a permanent water shortage crisis."

Miss Sally Crundwell (Loxwood)

1


"I am Chairman of Rudgwick Preservation Society and I am registering my support for the campaign on behalf of the Society. RPS strongly opposes the planned development and will give you every support."

Dr Leslie Hawkins (Rudgwick)

"I have just moved from Cranleigh after living there for 20 years. I am currently in Brussels but was planning to return to the Cranleigh area. The development as planned would be unsustainable in terms of traffic and local services."

Ms Sally Nicholson (Brussels)

"I took 18 months choosing where I wanted to live in my retirement. I could have moved elsewhere and been richer or in a bigger house. I have worked my whole life towards this. I do not want it to change.

The current average is 2.1 adult to child ratio of home occupancy. Most parents both work, even if one is only part-time. Where are these people to find employment? How will they travel to work and by what route? What is to stop the development being even bigger in the future? If the current plan is all that is being considered why purchase so much land elsewhere?"

Mr Roger Clark (Dunsfold)

"It seems extraordinary to me that there is some possibility that regional authorities would countenance this sort of wholesale urbanization of this green and peaceful part of England. People who live here or visit this area do so because it is one of the few remaining areas of beautiful countryside within reach of the existing major urban areas of the Southeast.

Managing the changing population, traffic flows and infrastructure requirements of this area is already a major challenge for Waverley and all who live here. Permitting this kind of gross transformation of the countryside will exponentially increase these problems, with material negative consequences for the neighbouring villages and knock-on effects across the whole region. It will be interesting to see where our council members’ interests lie: with the long-term concerns of the families and business residing in this district, or with the short-term economic interests of this commercial property developer…"

Mr A B (Dunsfold)

"Whilst I generally support plans for new housing in the area, the scale of this development is totally inappropriate and will have a dramatic negative impact upon our rural environs and the local infrastructure."

Mr David Wellington (Loxwood)

"My family have been here for 100 years. We have a beautiful view over England's most populated rural county - Surrey. Barely a building in sight. We need to keep it that way."

Mr B C (Ewhurst)

2


"In my view this development is unsustainable as Surrey is overdeveloped already especially with the present water shortage."

Mrs C D (Shamley Green)

“I do support the creation of a viable business park providing employment for the area with activities appropriate to a rural setting. However activities requiring HGVs if to be sustained must be served by a new entrance directly on the A281 to remove such vehicles from the present narrow DP entrances."

Mr James Northcote-Green (Alfold)

"We are very concerned about the sudden increase of traffic that will be travelling around our small 'back roads'. The road from Chiddingfold through Dunsfold to Cranleigh has seen a huge rise in traffic in the last 15 years, and has already become a fast and dangerous road, as it is used for a cut through. DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN !!!"

Mr & Mrs D E (Chiddingfold)

"This is an area of outstanding beauty... and any more development especially of this extreme nature will have a damaging effect on the lives of many others apart from locals. There is already a serious water shortage in the south east and so extra housing should be limited accordingly. If, as is stated, this proposal is against all national, regional and local planning policies then surely there cannot be any argument in favour of such a development."

Mrs E F (Capel)

"Who stands to benefit? The shareholders of Dunsfold Park Ltd? Or the less well off/under employed local people who cannot afford the high prices of housing in the area?

Who stands to lose? Almost all who currently live in the area will be affected by degradation of the environment. The road system is already heavily congested.

Dunsfold Aerodrome was built as an emergency wartime measure. The clear intention (and - I believe - the promise, given by the UK government during the Second World War) was that if the site is no longer required for aviation purposes the land must revert to agricultural use. So how is it that - almost 70 years on - plans have been drawn up (and a proposal is being made) to build a new town on the site of the aerodrome? How did we get here? It looks as if an almost inevitable "drift" has occurred: the aerodrome and then the business park were simply the thin end of the wedge. Now comes the thick end.

Is a new town necessary? Will it bring manifold benefits to the inhabitants of Dunsfold and Alfold? The proposed building of a new town on the site of the aerodrome will, principally and directly, benefit the shareholders of company No. 04482670 - Dunsfold Park Limited - registered as a developer & vendor of real estate and lessor of property.

Dunsfold Park Limited proposes to build a new town on the aerodrome - and further degrade the environment - in the name of one thing: the need for profit. This amounts to the enrichment of a few at the expense of the many. Dunsfold Park Limited will succeed in its aims unless enough people vociferously oppose the development proposal."

Mr F G (Dunsfold)

3


"Thank you for the leaflet put through our door the other day. This was the first time I had been made aware of the possible consequences of Dunsfold Park. I was not aware previously of how large a development was intended.

Whereas I am all for starter homes and shared ownership, a development of this size will cause a blight on everything around it. I don't see how the extra traffic would be coped with and an area of lovely countryside would be destroyed."

Mrs G H (Cranleigh)

"This development would be utter and complete madness and would wreak havoc on one of the most beautiful parts of England. No-one would benefit from this development, there are much better ways of accommodating expanded housing needs. Opportunistic commercial development like this makes me so mad!"

Mr H I (Loxwood)

"I live in Farnham in Surrey, where we are constantly fighting off plans (some successfully) to demolish large houses in surrounding areas to re-build with high density homes. This is driven by profit-hungry developers, but presented as a solution to the shortage of affordable homes - somewhat disingenuous since these developments are then promoted as "luxury" flats/apartments and are well outside of the price range for our local young people requiring starter homes. Shared-ownership schemes are sometimes offered within these builds, but these are equally inaccessible to the majority of young people since they are based upon a points and social need system.

This proposal for a new town is unlikely to provide anything for the area other than an opportunity for more buy-to-let properties for investors and/or social housing that is out of the reach of young people simply requiring an affordable home, key worker or not. I endorse fully all of your arguments and do not wish to see more of our beautiful county disappear. We are over-crowded as it is."

Mrs I J (Farnham)

I agree that the rural aspects of the area should be preserved and such developments are not compatible with this.

Mr Tim Bailey (Dunsfold)

"For the past 30 odd years this largely rural area has matured, with small changes in shopping facilities and amenities, but the small town as envisaged by the Rutland Group, would change the whole purpose and atmosphere of the area."

Mr Noel Firmston-Williams (Dunsfold)

"This will completely ruin this rural area. We need to fight against this happening. Surrey is renowned for its beauty and plans like this ludicrous one will ruin this local beauty."

Mrs Eileen Wright (Cranleigh)

4


"We completely support the aims of the campaign against the New Town development. It is astonishing that a scheme of such a patently inappropriate nature is under consideration. The interests of Rutland Group must not be allowed to destroy the special rural feel of this corner of Surrey. The problems such a development would create for current and future residents of the area would be enormous - from traffic to pollution to water use.

We do not oppose development on the site per se - some mix of office and small business on the developed portion of the site would be sensible and helpful to create new jobs in the area. However it would be appalling short-sightedness by politicians and the public to destroy forever the rural quality of this area in order to promote a development that has no significant public support and contravenes all existing land use policies."

Mr & Mrs J K (Dunsfold)

"It would devastate what was originally open farm land with no infrastructure to support such an inappropriate building scheme."

Mrs Sarah Sullivan (Hascombe)

"I am a Chartered Surveyor and do share concerns regarding the adverse impact of over development. Cranleigh is in need of more housing stock, with fringe development far better, albeit offering less volume. However, current green belt policy prohibits this, but development on the scale proposed at Dunsfold will be far more damaging to the countryside and the community in the long run."

Mr Martin Stiles (Cranleigh)

"The roads around the district cannot really cope with present traffic flows let alone an additional, say, 3,500 cars on daily runs to work, shopping, etc. Also utility services such as water, sewerage and electricity are overstretched, let alone add another 2,600 houses with all their requirements. With the narrow roads any increase in HGVs cannot be sustained."

Mr Creighton Redman (Dunsfold)

"Are we not crowded enough? We live in one of the most beautiful parts of the countryside ... which mass development on this scale will ruin. Also the roads are already busy enough and widening would only destroy what's left of rural Surrey/Sussex..."

Mr K L (Haslemere)

"The reason we opted to move to Cranleigh was that it had a unique village atmosphere - and we are keen that this is preserved. Congestion on the A281 is already severe during the rush hour. The changes we are already seeing on the High St reflect the loss of local shops and more high street chains - there is insufficient parking in Cranleigh to cope with 2,000+ new homes."

Mrs L M (Cranleigh)

5


"This is concreting over stunning countryside, development here is utterly unsustainable. I am desperately trying to buy my first house in the local area but this is not the answer!"

Mr M N (Haslemere)

"Dunsfold and surrounding areas simply could not cope with such an influx of additional homes, cars and people. The proposal would no doubt ruin a beautiful family area."

Mr Adam Sutton (Lickfold)

"[Mrs N O] teaches in a primary school in Cranleigh. It is already full up. Where could all the children from the proposed new estate go to school? It's ridiculous. We moved to Cranleigh because it was a BEAUTIFUL VILLAGE. We do not want it turned into a town"

Mr & Mrs N O (Cranleigh)

"I chose to live here as I wanted a rural location. Cranleigh is a delightful country area which I believe will be dreadfully marred by such a large building project. I do not believe it has the infrastructure to support such a large development as a town and I strongly object to this."

Miss Lynn Jones (Wormley)

"I strongly oppose the development of the housing estate on Dunsfold Park - apart from the obvious destruction to the beautiful Surrey countryside and surroundings due to the required infrastructure, it will severely affect the traffic levels going through our village. I live on the A281 on the South side of Bramley and the traffic queues are already horrendous at certain times of the day... The idea that the Downslink should be developed is abhorrent as this is a sacred and cherished nature and wildlife preserve in an otherwise busy and scarred village."

Mrs O P (Bramley)

"We moved here to be in the country, this proposal if allowed will be another nail in the coffin for the south's ever decreasing countryside and space. This isn't for the people but for someone's pocket. This must be stopped."

Mr P Q (Rudgwick)

"I recently bought a house in Dunsfold in order to bring up a young family in a beautiful, tranquil part of the world that we have known for years. I do not want this to be spoilt by it being a building site for the foreseeable future, and the ensuing traffic problems this would cause. I strongly object to the development of the airfield site."

Mr Q R (Dunsfold)

"This is clearly a quite ludicrous plan, on the basis of lack of infrastructure and access alone. Not only this but it directly contravenes the government's own planning & development guidelines as well as the promises made (I think) when it was built as a temporary emergency measure in the second world war."

Don Hooley (Dunsfold)

6


"I strongly oppose the plans for building. I have lived in Dunsfold all my life and love it for it's its tranquility. I do not want to live on the outskirts of a new town!"

Miss R S (Dunsfold)

"As a one time Loxwood parish councillor and long term resident used to the greater lunacies of unjoined up planning I am especially appalled at this proposal."

Mr James Jewell (Loxwood)

"This is an outrageous plan which will undoubtedly please the developers who will make millions and John Prescott, whose main ambition appears to be to cover the South/South East in concrete. Were this plan to succeed, it would only be a matter of time before infill occurred between DPNT and Cranleigh with all the associate infrastructure problems, which appear not to have been factored in."

Mr S T (Rudgwick)

"This is stripping our country's natural resources to make a corporate profit and is not acceptable in any shape or form."

Mr T U (Alfold)

"Why do they need to build a town there? Do they seriously think that the road infrastructure in that area is strong enough to support a new town? Who would want to live there - commuters to London wouldn't have a hope of parking at Godalming, let alone getting on a train, and the Bramley/Godalming bottleneck would deter any Guildford employees... Why ruin such a beautiful part of Surrey? "

Ms Henrietta Gourlay (Dunsfold)

"A totally unacceptable & unnecessary proposition in terms of green belt policy, traffic, pollution, access and infrastructure. Must be stopped at all costs."

Mr U V (Chiddingfold)

"I applaud your concerns for the total destruction of our beautiful rural area by these developers and give my support to any action required to stop this concrete jungle proposal. I am particularly concerned for the elderly residents on the Mobile Home Site regarding noise pollution."

Mr V W (Alfold)

"I am most distressed to see the plans being put forward by Dunsfold Park Ltd and will rally as many people as possible to register their disapproval."

Mrs W X (Loxwood)

"Traffic problems would escalate enormously. The rural amenities that are here would be totally lost and a huge swathe would be concreted over."

Mrs X Y (Dunsfold)

7

SDPNT Poe 1.20 - DP Ltd Letter To M. Nicholson - 22-06-06

1


2


3


4

Documents

Annex 2 Extracts - Waverley Council · Waverley Borough Council adopted this Local Plan at its meeting on 23rd April 2002. ... 7.51 Planning permission has been granted for the permanent