UPDATE 28 October 2015: Waverley’s planning portal still states that a decision is pending on this application, despite approval by the Joint Planning Committee on 1 July 2015 by a margin of one vote.

An extension to the determination period has also been published on the planning portal and the decision date is now 30 November 2015.

Today a local walker has noticed that Hydrock Engineers are digging some very deep holes on the site.

Crest Nicholson Site Horsham Road 28-10-15

What will they find?
Perhaps that:
The site’s prone to flooding?
The sewers can’t cope?
The water main is inadequate?
The clay soil requires much deeper foundations?
They really need another 100 houses to make it viable?
That all of the above means little or no affordable housing?

Let’s wait and see………..

UPDATE 21 July 2015: The Secretary of State has confirmed that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required for the Crest Nicholson, The Chantreys site, on the Horsham Road

UPDATE 1 July 2015: Waverley Borough Council Joint Planning Committee granted permission to this application on 1 July 2015. It was a close vote of 9 to 10 with the Chair of the meeting casting the deciding vote.

During the first scoping stage of this application the Secretary of State (SoS) issued a screening direction dated 25 August 2014 stating that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required. The SoS_sreening opinion Horsham Road stated that (extracted paragraph below):

Paragraph from Secretary of State Screening  Direction 25 August 2014

However as the applications referred to in the letter were at an early stage the SoS stated it was inappropriate to consider cumulative impacts with this proposal.

Since August 2014 Amlets lane site was approved for 125 dwellings, with work expected to commence soon and on 22 June 2015 the Eastern Planning Committee granted full permission for the Cranleigh Brickworks, involving 70 HGV traffic movements a day to and from the site for a minimum of 5 ½ years, with work commencing August 2015.

In the light of this new situation, the Cranleigh Society believe that there is a realistic prospect that the Secretary of State could come to a different conclusion with regard to the need for an EIA.

A screening decision must be lawful at the date of any planning permission. Unless a screening direction is referred back to the Secretary of State, there is a real risk that permission may be granted for development which is likely to have significant environmental effects without those effects being properly considered, contrary to Article 2.1 of the EIA directive.

We have asked the Secretary of State to intervene and request a deferment of a decision on WA/2014/1754 until he has reviewed the implications of the change of circumstances and decided whether an EIA is now applicable for this site. This is currently being considered by the Secretary of State.

There are more details available on our post about the granting of planning permission on the Crest Nicholson site Horsham Road (Chantreys)

Original post below:
Please forward your own objections to Waverley Borough Council to this Crest Nicholson application for 149 dwellings on Cranleigh’s green fields! 
View Crest Nicholson Site Plans.

Watch this video if you need a reminder of what last Winter was like, we don’t want our flood risk to increase!

Some general observations you might like to object to listed below, however please write these in your own words, don’t copy and paste this list, as pro forma objections will be binned by Waverley:

Comment online here:

Or email quoting reference: WA/2014/1754 Planning Officer is Megan Rowe

Points to consider for now!:

  • This application is premature to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.
  • It will cause considerable  harm to landscape character.
  • It’s not in a sustainable location.
  • It contravenes the Cranleigh Design Statement 2008.
  • There is no planned maintenance of the substantial drainage ditch to the North of the site and adjacent to existing houses.
  • Brown field sites should be built on first.
  • Our infrastructure can’t cope with another housing development of this size. Cranleigh is situated on narrow country lanes (B roads) single track in places, these are a material constraint.
  • Not near the high street.
  • Too far to walk to village centre and amenities.
  • Too far to walk to local schools.
  • Heavily increases reliance on cars.
  • Increases traffic flow through the high street.
  • In open countryside beyond green belt.
  • Thames Water has formally stated that there is an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. The current sewage problems indicate that the system is at breaking point.
  • Downslink is not a viable footpath too far to walk to the village, no street lighting and prone to regular collapses due to rabbit warren of tunnels underneath it.
  • Site abuts a Site Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI old railway cutting)
  • Walking times quoted in the Transport Assessment are not realistic especially for older and younger residents. (These documents are all published online with the planning application)
  • Danger to pedestrians and dog walkers from proposed increased in numbers of cyclists on the Downslink
  • No pedestrian footpath on site side of the Horsham Road for people wanting to walk into the village or get to the bus stop.
  • Road not wide enough for proposed pedestrian refuge in centre of road and for large vehicles to pass, pedestrians would be compromised. (this has now been withdrawn)
  • Transport Assessment assumes 35% of residents travel less than 2km to work, this is grossly overestimated.
  • Transport Assessment has measured junction delays individually not the overall cumulative effect of delays on total journey times.
  • As this site is agricultural land surface water flooding data is not robust as flooding may not have been reported in this are. However we know for a fact that houses adjacent to this site in Nightingales have flooded as recently as December 2013 (if you can please add personal stories/experiences to your objection)

Thank you once again for your support for Cranleigh