Dunsfold aerodrome development is on the move:
Waverley Borough Council has engaged a consultancy firm Allies and Morrison (click here to see their web site) to continue the previous work on the development of Dunsfold aerodrome
As you will probably remember outline planning permission was gained in the past, then owners put the site up for sale. Our councillors are involved in this stage of the consultation in a group called Dunsfold Advisory Group – includes our very own Liz Townsend and councillors from surrounding villages.
Will this development ruin Cranleigh’s chances of keeping its shops and schools?
This question is often raised – certainly the new village will have to have a 2 form entry school, a GP practice, and a good bus service. There are all other facilities planned except a leisure centre. The facts are that Waverley BC have included this development in their Local Plan which runs until 2032, and if this housing is not built then Waverley BC will have to ensure it is built in and around the villages and towns. That means us Cranleigh.
New owners on the way
We understand a buyer has been found and that the development is going ahead. The junction with the A281 is already being made ready for the new “Village”.
Have your say The consultation is called an SPD – which means Supplementary Planning Document.
Waverley BC would really, really like your opinions about the way the development is being designed by their consultants! They are consulting in various ways – on-line seminars, exhibitions and through the website. Please click here to follow the link.
What we think – but we want to know your views too
Our comments on your behalf so far have been emphasising the following needs –
wild life corridors, water and sewage management issues, future proofed eco properties, making sure all legislation that is coming within the next 10 years doesn’t mean householders having to retro-fit eco items, ensuring all age groups and mobility needs are catered very well for, green spaces and places to grow vegetables and fruit, transparency about drainage, caring for the pupils and staff at Jigsaw school – who hate noise – making sure that UCOG doesn’t get a look in, ground source heat pumps before building properties, owned shop houses rather than land owners who charge big rents for shops, ensuring plenty of opportunities for self-build especially for “Passivhaus” types (little or no energy required) and we have emphasised too that it is a very windy site!!!
Levy money that will make its way to Cranleigh – eventually
Developers are required to pay some money to Councils for a variety of “infrastructure” and “new” items that the public will benefit from, such as parks. In this case around three quarters of a million pounds (only) will eventually find its way into Waverley’s coffers to go towards Cranleigh’s £12-£30 million pound new leisure centre and other facilities development!
Why does that £750,000 go to Waverly and not DIRECT to Cranleigh, we are being inconvenienced and talking about inconvenience, what is being done about the road infrastructure around Dunsfold?
We believe the Section 106 has to go to Waverley as the new leisure centre is their project. As for roads, north and south are being strengthened, east and west just for buses and emergency vehicles – we think. If you have time perhaps you could browse the document this post points you to? best regards
Hi, wasn’t the orignal number of houses 1,800 and not 2,600.??
The number of houses allocated to Dunsfold is 2,600 in the local plan. An application for 1,800 of these has already gained outline planning permission.
It appears there is still opposition to the Dunsfold Garden Village development going ahead in various quarters. However, I can only see the Dunsfold Garden Village development being delayed by attempts to stop it going ahead. This may allow predatory developers time to gain permissions to fill the 5 year housing supply shortfall caused by a delay in the construction of the Dunsfold Garden village. The eventual consequences may very well be inappropriate development in inappropriate locations and a possible massive increase in the numbers of homes built in the local eastern Waverley villages. ie Cranleigh, Alfold, Ewhurst & Dunsfold before a delayed Dunsfold Garden village then continues on the development journey it would of gone on anyway to build 2,600 homes.
I am very concerned with the very large amount of new houses still being built in Cranleigh that the infrastructure will not cope which includes , water, sewerage, roads especially the A281 and Cranleigh High street, Cranleigh Clinic and electricity supply and car parks.. We already have had problems with power cuts, water shortage, long traffic delays in the High street and I hate to think what trying to get to Guildford on A281 will be like. I would like to think that all these issues are being addressed but I am not sure if that’s the case otherwise a lot of these would have started to be put in place BEFORE these houses were built!!!!
Sadly Cranleigh in my opinion is not a village anymore it is a small TOWN.
Hi Ian,
We at Cranleigh Civic society agree with you entirely and its why we formed the group many years ago.
We work on finding out what is going on and trying to bring the issues to the authorities, so that they realise what they must take into account.
Our successes are limited – Berkley homes went ahead…..
You are correct about designation – for a place with a population of between 12 and 18 thousand, depending on where you draw the lines, we are classed as a large town.
We have so many new residents, many of whom I have met and they are lovely and have thrown themselves into life here. So not all bad news.
The infrastructure is dire and our councillors do know this – but – they are short of fire power without concrete report. So when each person suffers from something they should raise a complaint to the authority, e.g. Thames Water, and copy that to the Parish Council to build up strong arguments.
Please share this.
Many thanks
Kind regards
Sue
Secretary
Cranleigh Civic society