STOP Dunsfold Park New Town

CPRE and their policy on Dunsfold Aerodrome

The CPRE is the champion of England's countryside and welcomes the support of all who care about it. CPRE is a registered charity with over 60,000 members and supporters living in our cities, towns, villages and the countryside. CPRE operates as a network with over 200 district groups, a branch in every county, a group in every region and a National Office. Over 2,000 parish councils and 800 amenity societies belong to CPRE. This makes CPRE a powerful combination of effective local action and strong national campaigning. Please join. See the CPRE website and the CPRE Surrey website .

CPRE supports the "STOP Dunsfold Park New Town" campaign.

"CPRE Surrey objects to the plan for a new town at Dunsfold Park. We do not believe that this proposal is sustainable. The choice is clear: urban encroachment or beautiful landscape and countryside tranquility. It is time that all those who value the rural environment stand up to be counted and say "No" to this damaging development." Tim Harrold - Chairman CPRE Surrey

CPRE SURREY POLICY RE DUNSFOLD AIRFIELD

1. Dunsfold Airfield Site: Dunsfold Airfield lies in open countryside, beyond any settlement and beyond the Metropolitan Green Belt, and is therefore subject to national, regional, county and local policies of restraint which indicate that the countryside should be protected for its own sake. The site is not a "brownfield" site. The greater area of the site (ignoring the developed northern enclave) is, and has been for many years, open countryside. Nothing in PPG3 or draft PPS3 contradicts this. The countryside at and around Dunsfold Airfield is attractive and quite remote; in some ways it is a quintessential English rural landscape; truly rural landscapes such as this are rare in Surrey and the South East and fully deserve the protection afforded to them from development in planning policies. The landscape characteristics of the site meet the requirements for the Surrey Hills AONB and the AGLV and this countryside will be a strong candidate for inclusion in the AONB when finally the boundaries of the Surrey Hills AONB are reviewed (something CPRE has long been campaigning for and which now has the support of Waverley Borough Council and most, if not all, of the local councils in Surrey). In CPRE's view, no activities or change of use should be permitted which would prejudice the likelihood in due course that this landscape will be brought into an extended Surrey Hills AONB, when the full rigour of national countryside protection policies applicable to National Parks and AONBs would apply to it.

2. The Historical Planning Position: It is important to recognize that the planning circumstances surrounding the site are exceptional and that temporary permissions have been granted in the past for a type and scale of development which would normally be regarded as inappropriate development in the countryside, particularly in attractive open countryside such as at Dunsfold. Previous permissions sought to strike a balance between the need to protect the amenities of local residents and the landscape, and the requirement of a specialist manufacturer of strategic national importance. The strategic national importance that drove previous permissions no longer exists and this must be recognised.

3. The South East Plan: The draft South East Plan in its quest for sustainable development emphasises a focus for development on the urban areas of the region and urban renaissance, with most housing growth concentrated on the Growth Areas and Sub Regional Strategy Areas, all far from Dunsfold.

4. The Surrey Structure Plan: Surrey County Council considers that the use of the site for housing and employment would be contrary to the Surrey Spatial Strategy and Policy LO1 of the Surrey Structure Plan concerning the location of development. Surrey County Council has also expressed concern about the potential use of the site, being in a relatively inaccessible location, for large scale employment use and has commented that, given the lack of public transport accessibility to the site combined with the limited local labour supply, this could result in a significant level of long distance commuting by car and that such a use would be wholly contrary to the policies in the Structure Plan.

5. The Waverley Local plan and draft LDF: Although residents can no longer look forward to the return of the site to agriculture and the demolition and removal of the buildings and runways as originally provided for in the permissions granted to BAe and its predecessors, the site is governed or washed over by policy C2 and any possible development of any part of the site must be viewed against that background. The theme of policy C2 is continued in the draft LDF Core Strategy, with those policies specifically rejecting the idea of major housing developments in the open countryside, and focussing development on the Waverley market towns and larger villages. CPRE regard policy C2 and the new policies in the LDF Core Strategy as major tools in the quest for sustainable development and for the protection of the countryside beyond the green belt in Waverley.

6. The Northern Brownfield Land: What is unusual about this C2 site is that the northern part of it, comprising some 40 acres, has extensive buildings on it which have extant various planning permissions which were granted to BAe and which are now available to other occupants and which also have various temporary planning permissions granted to the Rutland Group. CPRE accepts that in view of this and notwithstanding its strong support for policy C2 and the locational policies in the Surrey Structure Plan, an exception may be justified in relation to that part of the site which we shall refer to as the "the northern brownfield land". (To avoid any doubt, we would point out that this area does not include any part of the runways, which, in our view, should not be considered to be brownfield areas or previously developed land.) Such an exception could authorise the change of use of those buildings or their demolition and reconstruction on that part of the site, subject to appropriate conditions. Traffic considerations are highly material, given the poor state of the local roads and their inability to cope with any material increase in traffic. Stovolds Lane and the exit at Stovolds Corner on to the B2031 are, for example, highly unsatisfactory for any material amount of traffic. We note that Surrey County Council, as the Highway Authority, is opposed to any intensification of traffic. We do not believe it would be sustainable for the northern brownfield land to be developed for housing. The site is remote and lacks the necessary infrastructure for any significant amount of housing. Its use for housing is clearly contrary to government policy for the location of new housing sites as well as regional, county and local plan policies. Whilst we support the need for more affordable housing in Waverley, this site would rank poorly in contrast to other potential sites in the Borough. The continued use of this part of the site for mixed industrial and office use is, in CPRE's view the better option. Such a use will be more sustainable than housing but planning conditions would need to carefully drawn up to limit, for example, the number of people to be employed at the site and the number of traffic movements per day to prevent overloading of the local road network. The type of permitted uses would also need to be carefully delineated to protect local amenity and the rural quality of the surrounding countryside against excessive noise and other forms of pollution or nuisance. CPRE does not have any detailed information about the environmental assets of the site (the whole site has of course been a classified MOD area for many years and thus not accessible to the public by means of public footpaths or otherwise) and we believe that Waverley Borough Council has no such information. The results of the environmental and landscape surveys undertaken by the Rutland Group have not been made publicly available. This information when available may necessitate the imposition of further conditions. In view of the sensitivities of the site and that any permission to develop the northern brownfield land would be exceptional, we believe that Waverley should consider the use of a section 106 agreement or planning conditions to protect the remainder of the site. It would be totally unsatisfactory if permission were to be given, as an exceptional matter, for the northern brownfield land to be developed, only to be followed by applications for similar development of the remainder of the site.

7. The Undeveloped site: We must emphasise that CPRE sees absolutely no justification for any exception to be made for the remainder of the site. It is open and attractive countryside and should remain so. Its development for housing, industry or office accommodation would clearly fall foul of government, regional and county policies for the location of development and would be wholly unsustainable. The existing runway is not brownfield land and can be allowed to degrade through natural processes. Any proposals for development of the remainder of the site should be judged in the same way as any other similar proposal for development on any other C2 land in the Borough. There is no justification for any exceptions to be made. This is no doubt the reason why, as we understand it, this land was sold by BAe to the Rutland Group at a price reflecting the price of agricultural land. CPRE totally rejects the concept of a new settlement on the site as recently proposed by the Rutland Group. It would destroy attractive and high quality countryside, potentially a candidate for inclusion in the Surrey Hills AONB. Such development would moreover be totally unsustainable. It would radically and adversely affect the character of the neighbouring area. Cranleigh, Alfold and Bramley would lose all sense of being rural communities and soon become part of an urban sprawl centred on Cranleigh. The very high cost of 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 (which is needed and which CPRE supports) and a larger number of market priced houses which are not needed and which could be more than adequately met in more suitable locations. In its report published in January 2000, W.S. Atkins suggested that the site might become degraded environmentally and subject to adverse activities with bad neighbour uses, if not developed. We reject that suggestion completely. We doubt that the Rutland Group as the owners of the site would permit this to happen and there is no specific reason why this C2 land should, if undeveloped, become degraded any more than other C2 land or indeed greenbelt land in the rest of the Borough. Land values in this part of Surrey remain comparatively high which encourages good stewardship, despite the financial problems facing farmers and woodland owners. CPRE considers that the remainder of the site should continue to have predominantly rural uses. There are a variety of acceptable rural uses for the remainder of the site and we doubt that it is wise to be too specific about any preferred use or uses at this stage. As a property development company, the Rutland Group will naturally be looking to maximise its profit on the site and this clearly entails maximising the development potential of the site. Acceptable rural uses are unlikely to contribute to that objective and it is clear that the landowner does not wish actively to promote specific ideas for rural land uses at a time when it is hoping to develop the whole site for housing. Attractive possibilities for the remainder of the site or part of it include the creation of new native woodland, linking up with the existing woodland on the site and, more critically, with Ancient Semi-Natural woodlands across the West Weald, as well as providing open access to the public. CPRE rejects the notion that "something has to be done about the undeveloped part of Dunsfold airfield" or that "a future land use solution needs to be formulated and agreed" about this part of the airfield, implying as it does that some exception must be made to the normal planning rules relating to open countryside because it is held by a property development company. Waverley is a rural area, not an urban area. It is not the function of Waverley as the local planning authority in an essentially rural area to "do something about" or find "solutions" to the use of rural C2, AGLV or AONB land held by property development companies, outside the uses permitted by the development plan. There are considerable areas of open countryside in Waverley which may not be producing adequate financial returns, given the serious problems facing agriculture and forestry but that does not mean that Waverley as the local planning authority has to find solutions in land use terms for all such land in the Borough. CPRE considers that a solution has been found for Dunsfold Airfield, with the permitted industrial and commercial usage of the developed part of the airfield. We consider that the Rutland Group (and Waverley) should concentrate on making a success of that part of the site and leave the undeveloped part for genuinely rural uses.

CPRE SURREY (WAVERLEY DISTRICT COMMITTEE)
June 2006