Where should we build new homes?

To assume that those Liberal Democrats who do support the Dunsfold development don't care about the countryside is quite unjustified and trivialises the very real challenges we face in Surrey in meeting the demand for new homes.

There's a massive demand for houses in the the Surrey countryside. But both Conservative and Lib Dem councillors responding to the concerns of local residents have resisted housing developments in the countryside. In turn that caused the massive rise  in house prices locally.

As a result, young people from Dunsfold and other Surrey

villages can't afford to buy anywhere to live in the community in which they've grown up. So we have fewer young families in our villages, and fewer children.

The local schools then close down and the remaining children must travel further, usually by car, while the proportion of elderly people in the villages increases along with the need for support services.

So, most councillors of all political persuasions agree that we need more "affordable" housing, both in towns and villages.

But the only way we get land for affordable houses is by granting planning permission for new housing developments

and insisting that the developers give (say) 25 percent of the land for social housing, which is passed on to housing associations who then build affordable homes.

Government legislation means that  most  new houses are on built on brown field (previously developed) sites, such as old factories  There are very very, few of these in Surrey. So when a  very large brown field site such as Dunsfold becomes available, I can  understand  that those who care about providing affordable  housing  for young families and others in need, would  want to find  an acceptable way  to  enable housing development on  the site.