architecture-1857175_1280

Civic Society Strengthens Cranleigh Plan

Share Button

The Cranleigh Civic Society has responded to the Draft Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan by proposing a number of additions to strengthen the Plan:

1. The Policies MUST be strengthened to ensure they can be enforced on Developers: “developers should be encouraged to ….” is far too weak. Developers MUST be held to firm policies, otherwise they will try and evade them.

2. The Plan must have policies on Roads and Infrastructure. This is the greatest threat from building 1,700+ houses in Cranleigh. Since the A281 goes through Cranleigh Parish, it is vital to state that the A281 and other access roads to Cranleigh should be subject to a major study to determine how traffic congestion – as a result of the increased housing development in Cranleigh and Dunsfold – can be relieved. There should be a clear policy on how Cranleigh will pressure Surrey County Council and Waverley Council to improve Infrastructure and Roads.

3. There must be clear policies on the building of the Care Home, and the move or expansion of the Leisure Centre, since these are the major expansion of facilities for Cranleigh. The Plan must support the building of the Care Home, to include staff accommodation, BUT priority must be given to Cranleigh residents since a large proportion of the funding has been donated by Cranleigh residents.

4. The Leisure Centre should be expanded rather than being re-built in another location, by extending the building into the staff car park – and tennis courts if necessary, in order to provide changing rooms for Male, Female and Families. The pool should be improved, but it must retain spectator seating. A Sports Hall would be a good
benefit if there is space.

5. The Plan should state that Cranleigh residents should get priority for Affordable Home allocation.

6. 3 storey buildings should be avoided, such as the ones at Crest Nicholson and Hewitts, since these impact the privacy of nearby existing buildings.

7. Development sites must retain as many existing trees, hedges and natural features to retain the site’s character. All Planning Applications MUST include a scaled landscape and tree plan showing trees proposed for removal and new trees.

8. A replacement building must not appreciably increase mass, height or scale compared to the existing building, and be compatible with the street scene and scale.

9. The Snoxall Fields should be protected as an Area of Special Visual Interest, apart from the Care Home Site.

10. The increased homes in Cranleigh and Dunsford will put severe pressure on parking for shopping. The Society is against building a multi-storey car park on Village Way.

11. There must be no further loss of employment sites for commercial, light industrial and entrepreneurial use, with the loss of Hewitts – and the Astra House and buildings must not be demolished for housing.

12. The Waverley Plan has dictated that Cranleigh MUST build 1,700 houses by 2032 – but we have had over 1,700 Planning Applications already – and the great majority have been given Planning Approval. So what is going to happen for the next 14 years? There MUST be firm policies that NO Planning Applications – apart from windfall sites should be approved.

Please let us know if you have any comments for improvements.

Share Button

3 thoughts on “Civic Society Strengthens Cranleigh Plan”

  1. Opposition to a second level to the car park in Village Way is unwise. Whilst acknowledging that more car parking spaces are needed, closing down the possibility of doubling the available spaces without doubling the ground area needs more thought, particulalrly as an additional level to Sainsbury’s car park would provide yet more parking spaces, reducing the need to gobble up more of our countryside.
    The Grand Gesture from Waverley of offering us a new Leisure Centre smacks of attempts to assuage the guilt of dumping excessive housing numbers on us. A re-development is a sensible option, not as glamorous for those who propose it perhaps but with a decent brief and a good, imaginative design team, the result would meet the needs of this expanding ‘village’.

  2. Sorry, but it is not good enough to turn down multistory car parking in the centre of Cranleigh.
    For example it could be possible to go down not up.
    Also it should be a requirement for any major changes to Stockland square to include parking for “N” hundred cars. up or down.
    There must be a way to incorporate a walkway alongside Knowle Lane up as far as the flats on the east of the lane. This could pass through the proposed new Hospital/retirement complex grounds. It is already nearly impossible to walk or cycle from the high street up Knowle Lane. An accident is just waiting to happen.

  3. I think you have covered everything. I agree with your comment regarding the Leisure Centre, why move it when it is in the best possible place. Why are Waverley spending our money appointing consultants to look for another site when we already have the best one?!

    May I point out one mistake, 10. Dunsfold nor Dunsford but you have probably notice this yourself I expect.

Leave a Reply

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