The decision to “call in” the application to build 1,800 new homes at Dunsfold Aerodrome (see previous news item) will be welcomed by many local residents who expressed grave concern that the proposed development was not sustainable and would be of considerable detriment to the local infrastructure.

In particular, it demonstrates the success of the initiative by eleven surrounding parish councils – including Hambledon – who urged the Secretary of State to “call in” the application submitted by Dunsfold Park Ltd and approved, despite widespread objection, by Waverley Borough Council in December.

This means that the application must now be considered at a Public Inquiry at which a planning inspector will hear the arguments for and against before making a recommendation to the Communities Secretary Sajid Javid.

Hambledon Parish Council played an active role in the joint parish councils initiative, supporting the view of others that the impact of such a large development in a rural area would have a major and adverse effect on already congested roads such as the A281, would lead to “rat-running” on narrow country lanes, including those in the parish, and that the application had insufficient measures to mitigate against these and other sustainability issues.

A campaign group called Protect Our Waverley was set up and actively lobbied against the proposal. Anne Milton, the MP for Guildford, pressed the case for the call-in at Westminster.

The decision to hold a public inquiry – at a date yet to be fixed – is a considerable set-back for Waverley Borough Council. It not only approved the application but, separately, identified Dunsfold Park as a key strategic site for new development in its controversial new Local Plan, which has yet to be formally adopted.

The site owners have indicated that eventually 3,400 homes could be built on the site of the former World War Two airfield, which is currently used as a business park.

A previous application to build a “new town” on the site was refused by Waverly and went to appeal in 2009. The appeal upheld the Waverley decision.

Since then Waverley has done an “about face” following central government pressure to find sites for new homes.

Hambledon Parish Council has stated throughout that it understands the pressing need for new homes but cannot support the Dunsfold Park application because of its failure to address significant infrastructure issues, particularly traffic congestion, over-crowding on local trains, lack of space at station car parks, provision of schooling and other hard-stretched local services.

It has suggested that if Dunsfold was to be approved as a site for major new housing radical measures were necessary to mitigate its impact, including the reopening of the Guildford to Cranleigh railway line as a light tramway, with a spur to Dunsfold Park, while retaining the current cycle track and footpath that uses the route.

A spokesman for the joint parish councils welcomed the “call-in” decision and said it would meet soon to consider its next step.

In a letter to the joint parishes, Anne Milton said she was “delighted” by the outcome and did not believe the situation had changed since the 2009 rejection of development at Dunsfold Aerodrome.

“I know that eleven parish councils asked for this application to be called in and I have joined that call, and repeatedly highlighted my concerns in letters and in person to Ministers. What is important now is that all the concerns can now be given due consideration.

I am very aware that we need new homes and in particular for those on lower incomes. However those homes need to be situated in the right locations where the infrastructure, or anticipated infrastructure improvements can support them.”

Waverley Borough Council leader Julia Potts said she was “surprised and disappointed” by the call-in decision and said the application to build on what is considered a brown field site “ticks all the boxes” and would provide significant benefits to the local community in terms of affordable housing and jobs.

Dunsfold Park had not expressed its response to the decision at the time of publishing this article.