Inquiry Day 3 Summary Report

July 20, 2017

Dunsfold Park Public Inquiry – Day 3 (20th July) Summary

Mr Robin Shepherd of Barton Willmore, our planning consultant, gave his evidence yesterday afternoon, so the morning session opened with cross examination by Dunsfold Park’s QC, Mr Christopher Katkowski. Mr Katkowski argued that the emerging Plan would certainly include Dunsfold Park. Mr Shepherd argued that the Inspector’s finding on the Plan were provisional and much more work needed to be done. There was a long discussion on the interpretation of the National Planning Policy Framework over which Mr Katkowski and Mr Shepherd disagreed. Mr Katkowski then moved on to the impacts/costs (including the loss of ancient woodland) and alleged benefits of the proposal including affordable housing and the number of jobs created (albeit now reduced). Mr Shepherd argued the benefits were limited because neither the houses nor the jobs were where they were most needed and that many of the benefits were actually mitigations, which should not count.

The cross examination of Mr Shepherd continued into the afternoon.

Representations from the public commenced at 2:35pm and consisted of a mix of powerful presentations against the application from individual residents and individual parish councils. While the recurring themes of transport, rat runs, and HGVs came up with plenty of ‘real life examples’, there were also new and compelling representations covering Conservation and Heritage, Landscape views from an artist’s perspective, response times for emergency services, and the impact and necessity for such high buildings including the 100’ high waste plant chimney. The Shalford junction improvement that takes common land was challenged, and the lack of provision for the horse riding community (especially road crossings and new connected bridleways). It was time also for parishes and village communities to stand up to say that, yes, they are already self-contained and sustainable, but the same could not be guaranteed for the new town which might instead end up as a ‘sink estate’.

Tomorrow will continue with representations from the public starting at 10.00. If anyone wishes to attend and make any statement they are welcome to do so, but are advised to arrive a few minutes early to ensure a place in the Public Gallery at the Council Offices. The inspector has been taking copies of any notes that speakers have, but this is not an absolute requirement!

5 Comments

  1. Reply
    Stuart White

    Thank you for your daily reports of the proceedings.

    I am sure it features prominently, or will do, and do forgive me for not having studied all the papers, but can you reassure me that it is being made clear (as I understand to be the case) that the inevitable increased rainfall runoff from the development will increase the flow in the Cranleigh Waters, and hence the flooding risk downstream, especially in Bramley where the pinch point of the Wonersh Bridge in Station Road already causes flooding at times of high rainfall?

    Has the developer undertaken to do all works necessary to the relevant infrastructure, including Wonersh Bridge, and further downstream towards Guildford as a result, to avoid causing extra flooding in Bramley and beyond? This would involve very significant expense.

    1. Reply
      Web-master

      Hello Stuart,

      The Environmental issues are on the POW/Joint Parishes agenda. It is a significant factor.

      May I suggest that you come to the Inquiry tomorrow and air your concerns? This is something that worries a lot of local people and it would add weight to the argument if locals could voice their concerns and ask these questions.

  2. Reply
    Fay sharpe

    Thanks very much for the updates and the work you are doing to ensure the local residents are represented . As I drove down Markwick lane tonight and battled multiple Cars . Vans and HGVs trying to race along the lane to Milford , I thought of the impact there will be if the development is allowed to go ahead.
    Wrong place .simple as that . Housing is needed but in the right place near the right transportation links primarily train. Waverley councillors our MP Jeremy Hunt and others need to listen to citizens and their concerns . This project is about one thing and one thing only .. profit for the developers.
    Let’s hope your efforts work.
    Yours supportingly
    Ms Sharpe

    1. Reply
      Web-master

      Hi Fay, Yes the East-West route is a fundamental flaw in the WBC strategy (is there one?) – If you look at Waverley Borough on a map you could not find a location further away from a railway station than Dunsfold Park. Of the four towns – Haslemere, Godalming, Farnham and Cranleigh – only Cranleigh has not got a rail link, and yet receives 43% of WBC’s housing allocation (including Dunsfold).

      Markwick Lane and Salt Lane are dangerous and vulnerable to become clogged – it just takes one vehicle to trigger a tailback, and yet this is the primary route to nearest trains and the A3. It will be chaos.

  3. Reply
    Roger Clark

    Your correspondent, Stuart White mentions water run off going towards Bramley, but we also know it flows South. A few years ago I’m told toxic run-off from Dunsfold Park ran off to the West, into the culvert running between Jewings Hurst and Sayers Land and thence into the lake below Hunterswood Farm, then onto the lake on Renmant Pastures and on into the Little Arun, sometimes called the River Lox. I worked on a farm beside the Little Arun in Sussex, Lee House Farm and it regularly floods meadows there. If more run-off were to take this route a lot of pasture would be untenable and many fields with livestock would be cut-off from the farm and its feedstocks if the bridge near Rosemary Lane is breached..

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *