Love Your River! Village Hall meeting 26 March 7pm

Share Button

Love Your River!

Cranleigh Village Hall Meeting

Monday 26th March 7 till 9 pm

Can you spread the word about this important meeting please –

Cranleigh Waters


Monday 26th March 7 – 9 pm

Cranleigh village Hall



Discover how you could help improve habitat and water quality. Bring your ideas and stories and get involved!

The project involves:

Events to encourage participation & issue identification

Design and delivery of a programme of works

Water quality investigation


Share Button

Cranleigh Flood Forum news

Share Button


MP Anne Milton ran an effective and Informative Flood Forum today, in the Band room, from 10 till 11am.

The team assembled around her included representatives from Thames Water, Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council.

Questions had been sent to Anne Milton’s office – to her secretary Sarah – in advance – plus Anne used the minutes of the previous meeting to ask those present for the answers.

MP Anne first asked if the public have been looking at Cranleigh Parish Council’s website for news – most people said no – so here is a link which we urge you to read –

The meeting was attended by at least 60 people including 3 Councillors.  The minutes will be circulated as soon as possible, meanwhile here are the minutes of the previous meeting.


Note of Meeting: 24 July 2017, Band Room, Cranleigh


The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP (Chair)

Sue Pennison, Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)

Waverley Borough Council (WBC):

Peter Cleveland, Planning

Gayle Wootton, Planning

William Gibb, Planning Enforcement

Nick Laker, Engineers

Richard Homewood, Environmental Services

Beverley Bell, Clerk, Cranleigh Parish Council

Sarah Coleby, Office of Anne Milton MP

Cyril Mitkov, Thames Water (TW)

Nishad Sowky, Thames Water

Paul Hudson, Environment Agency (EA)

Tor Peebles, Surrey County Council (SCC)

County Cllr Andrew Povey

Cllr Liz Townsend

Cllr Stewart Stennett

Cllr Jeannette Stennett

Parish Cllr Angela Richardson

Parish Cllrs



Steve Robjohns, Public Health England


Parish Council – Beverley Bell reported that information was on the website and in the September newsletter


Waverley planning officers have sent a link to the Parish Council to put on their website.


Thames Water reported that this was an ongoing battle.  Many had been addressed, but always keen to receive more evidence.  A specialist engineers has been identified, and action is planned.

Thames Water cannot enforce, but the Borough Council can.  It was suggested that home owners should be required to provide invoice evidence that new connections have been carried out.

The foul sewer is inundated with surface water, or ingress from ground water.  With more housing it was suggested that 12 times dry weather flow may be required, and a total upgrade required, to accommodate current housing and housing that now had planning permission.


Database: Cllr Townsend requested a hotspot database.  It was recognised that local knowledge and local people identifying a problem was crucial.  This should be reported through the Parish Council who can refer on to Thames Water/Environmental Health/Environment Agency as appropriate.

Cranleigh Waters: the water course is categorised as ‘moderate’. The EA reported that macrophytes and phosphates are the key problem, based on worst case analysis, not averages.  It was suggested that data is only available up to 2013-14, and was taken from only one monitoring point.

ACTION: Thames Water to confirm that the wet weather flow is 10 times the dry weather flow – whereas tank capacity is 6 times dry weather flow.

ACTION: All – to report what they see to

ACTION: Catchment Group – to consider moving sampling sites and investigate the availability of more up to date data. EA to report back to next meeting.


Waverley planners reported that the Local Plan includes general policy about avoiding pollution, and mitigation for flooding.  It was still with the Planning Inspector

Cllr Stennett stressed that flooding occurred less when the EA maintained the river, and that annual maintenance is vital.  Riparian ownership is recognised, but the EA can move an obstruction where there is specific flood risk.

It was acknowledged that a culture change is required – so that people take responsibility personally (under riparian ownership) or as a community.  This would help to make sure funding is prioritised where enforcement is difficult (eg a vulnerable owner physically unable to undertake work).  There is grant funding available for community schemes, and riparian owners should also be asked to contribute.  Solutions can be relatively easy.  Anne Milton pointed out that a walkabout can help to highlight problem areas, this is an approach she uses in other Flood Forum groups once a year.

Tor Peebles (SCC) confirmed the importance of feedback, and stressed that priority depends whether homes are at risk.


Nightingales Culvert: culvert owned by Thames Water, upstream is a riparian issue with a group of residents looking to maintain, but concern that there is a blockage within the 200m culvert.

 Insurance for Community Groups: Tor Peebles suggested crowdfunding, organisations such as Scottish Electric, Tesco (plastic bag fund), Greggs, Surrey Community Foundation.

ACTION: Tor Peebles to put group in touch with others who have previous experience.

 Cranleigh Waters: Cllr Townsend reported that dredging has caused problems downstream.  EA reported that they are investigating with Cranleigh Nurseries, and although there may be no increase in flood risk the environmental damage may be significant – and they will not give up.

 Planning Applications: Cranleigh Society are concerned about developments given planning permission with no apparent objection by the EA, and particularly about the Thakeham Homes development.  The EA reported that they did not object because there was no flood risk of homes at the level where homes will be built.  Residents expressed concern if the EA accept evidence provided by a developer over anecdotal and even photographic evidence provided by residents.  There had been work carried out by Adrian Clarke (Cranleigh Society) and Doug Hill (SCC) in 2015 to map the flood plain, including collecting photo evidence, this may not have been taken into account by SCC as Lead Flood Authority.

ACTION: SCC Tor Peebles to get details and do letter about SUDS standards.

ACTION: Cllr Townsend to provide questions to Tor Peebles

ACTION: WBC Planners to share response re Thakeham application to Parish Council to publish on website



Thames Water reported sampling pipe material at 5 sites.  Water at 13 sites had been sampled and analysed.  At 10 sites there were no fibres, 3 had tested positive for some fibres (2/millilitre at one and 1/millilitre at the others).  TW tested under normal conditions to household supply, at the time of a burst and near the burst site, and after a flush of the system.

By comparison, 1 cubic metre of air contains 10 fibres. Some of these fires would be occurring naturally, and this represents a very low concentration.

3 km out of 14 km water pipes in Cranleigh (about 20%) are asbestos cement mains.  TW are continuing to look at the possibility of risk and will be consulting next year, when they will welcome feedback.

The Drinking Water Inspectorate (Sue Pennison) reported that she has written to the World Health Organisation to request an opportunity to engage; she would work further with Cllr Townsend and with Cranleigh Society.  She confirmed that the Inspectorate and Thames Water consider the water supply in Cranleigh to be safe to drink.


The next meeting was proposed for Friday 9 March 2018

Share Button


Share Button

Your MP Hears your problems – FLOOD FORUM 

Bandroom, Friday, March 9th. 9.30 am


Anne Milton MP and your Waverley Borough & Cranleigh Parish Councillors plus many Officers from the Council, Thames Water & other agencies – will attend 10-11.30 – can they

STOP the next Cranleigh FLOOD?

STOP house building until our overloaded Sewerage System is upgraded

replace 29% of our drinking water pipes that are made from asbestos containing cement

Slow down At least 2,600 houses in Waverley Borough Council’s Local Plan – for Dunsfold aerodrome

STOP Massive Overload of our infrastructure

ENSURE A281 to Guildford DOES NOT GET clogged up!




Share Button

Flood Forum Friday 9th March 9.30 to 11.30 Band room

Share Button

Thakeham Homes site Jan 2015


9.30 to 11.30


Please come along and hear what MP Anne Milton and others have to say.

we look forward to seeing you there and hearing your news too,

Share Button

Community Infrastructure Levy lost £s

Share Button

CCS received a grumbling letter – it goes something like this –

Let’s talk about Community Infrastructure Levy now at last we have a LOCAL PLAN, but what does this mean?

An agreed LOCAL PLAN gives our planners at Waverley Borough Council the power to control future housing development; they can plan for the development of new infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, hospitals etc.  and very importantly it enables the Borough Council to charge house builders a COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY known as CIL for short. 

What is  CIL?

 CIL raises monies towards the cost of the new Infrastructure needed for the developments to go ahead. What a wonderful step forward we all exclaim!! and so it is. But what of the housing already approved? approaching 2000 houses throughout the borough. Well unfortunately

CIL is not retrospective.

How much will Waverley charge?

According to WBC’s website Waverley’s draft proposal  sets a CIL rate of £395/ Sq Metre of floor area for all new housing, (about £40,000 on an average 3 bed house), except quite reasonably for “Affordable Housing” where there is no charge. So taking the 35% of Affordable Housing the Borough is committed to build away from the approximately 2,000 houses so far approved, there will be a loss of CIL to the tune of a minimum £60 MILLION pounds. £60 MILLION pounds that will NOT be available to improve our ROADS, our SCHOOLS, our HOSPITALS, our BOROUGH!!

 How could this have happened we may ask? It happened because our planning officers at Waverley failed to come up with a plan that satisfied the Government’s criteria for a LOCAL PLAN.

How a Local Plan is developed by the Borough Planners

The basic criteria affecting us as council tax payers was to identify suitable sites for new housing. This has to satisfy the Central Government’s housing policy, a requirement that was for about 350 houses a year until 2032. Woking B C have had an agreed  Local Plan for some years  that has now proved inadequate, so the inspector added a further 150 or so houses per year to WBC’s to cover their shortfall! So WBC’s Yearly requirement rose to 509 houses until 2032 (a total of 7,126 houses) 35% of which must be “Affordable”. Plus a further rise to 590 was deemed necessary by the inspector when I last looked. 

What of democracy?

Of these 7,126 houses, a minimum of 4,300, rising to perhaps 5,000 are planned for CRANLEIGH and DUNSFOLD, with the balance spread around the rest of the Borough; We have to ask – just how democratic is that?

 Improvements to our Local Roads and Rail?

Perhaps we could have a new road to rescue us from the A281 Blight? Unfortunately not: there will, however, be a new roundabout at Shalford, just 100 or so metres from the existing roundabout, which feels as if it will bring the traffic to a complete standstill; and the Elmbridge Road and Bramley crossroads junctions will be reconfigured, so that’s a relief!!! There will also be a new Canal bridge at Elmbridge but no new bridge over the old Railway.

What of the Railway?

No plans whatsoever have been considered since SCC’s last feasibility study found not enough demand and not affordable. 


There is a plan for 1,700 or so houses plus factories, shops, a school, a medical centre etc. awaiting Government inspector approval. Oh and in the future the prospect of an increase to 2,600 houses or perhaps 3,500 houses or most likely the full 6,000! Sadly, however, it seems that the developers have convinced the powers that be at Waverley that the development of Dunsfold would be jeopardised by the imposition of CIL on the whole development, so there will be NO CIL on the entire development – thereby saving the developers up to £100 MILLION over the life of the development – so that’s ok then.

So let’s hope the plan goes ahead fully and that our Planners use all their discretion to put right the wrongs – spreading the housing out more fairly – hunting for better sites……    they can – but will they?

Share Button