Resident’s View on Waverley’s Plan for Cranleigh

Share Button

A local resident’s view on Waverley’s Local Plan sent yesterday to Julia Potts  (leader of Waverley Borough Council) and Brian Adams (Planning Portfolio Holder) objecting to the dumping of 45% of the borough’s entire housing stock in Cranleigh and surrounding villages.

We would urge you to email or write to: ,  (copy in your MP and the Cranleigh Society  and let them know what you think.


Waverley Borough Council Address:

Julia Potts and Brian Adams
Waverley Borough Council, The Burys, Godalming, GU7 1HR

MP Constituency Address:

Anne Milton MP
17a Home Farm, Loseley Park, Guildford, GU3 1HS

Resident’s email:


In the strongest of terms we object to the continued attack by developers on Cranleigh’s green fields and we object to the fact that Waverley seem to be happy to be complicit with this action. Cranleigh is not suitable for these massive developments.

Cranleigh is a large village with a strong community spirit and it is despicable that Waverley Borough Council seem content to see it destroyed. It is not fair that it is seen as an easy target as there is no local plan in place yet, to protect it. It also raises the question as to why there is no local plan in place!!
Cranleigh’s infrastructure i.e roads, schools, doctors transport links would not support this massive increase in housing that are trying to dumped in the village – approximately 1500 extra homes is an extra 35% of existing housing, which is disproportionate to the village.
The housing need calculation has not been disclosed although there have been numerous requests. Are the 3 Borough Councils happy that they do not understand how the subcontractor arrived at these housing need figures!! see letters in Surrey Advertiser
Cranleigh will be blighted by the 3 current large housing proposals which will attack 3 sides of the village, causing additional air pollution, noise, traffic congestion, damage to road surfaces and loss of green fields. Are brownfield sites not meant to be used in preference to green fields as per government policy. It is not acceptable that because it makes it cheaper for the developer to use green field sites that they are granted permission.
Cranleigh already has a history of flooding and sewage pollution -there are plenty of reports on this by Environment Agency and Thames Water. These will increase dramatically and what will the situation be when someone becomes ill from sewage contamination in the water. My feeling would be that Waverley Borough Council will be liable for allowing the development in the first place when it is clearly an unsustainable site.
There has already been some development in Cranleigh, namely Swallow Tiles and by Glebelands school.There are some other suitable brownfield sites which could be used, such as the Industrial estate. However stating that there will be low cost housing for local people is in itself misleading if those local people come from outside the borough as has happened in some of the housing near Glebelands. I also understand that the site of the old Godalming Police station has allocated 40 apartments to Croydon Borough Council, if this is true then that is not local housing needs!! Swallow tiles is a large site but it does not have many low cost houses, probably because developers are keen to minimise the number where they can.
Please take these comments on board and revisit the planning applications surrounding Cranleigh. Local people do not want their village ruined by inappropriate housing developments.

Waverley Borough Housing Allocation June 2016

Share Button

Cranleigh Floods!

Share Button

In just a few minutes after a heavy downpour on Saturday afternoon (25 June) parts of Cranleigh were very quickly flooded.

Knowle Lane 25 June 2016

This incident shows exactly how rapidly flooding can occur and provides a clear indication of how catastrophic a prolonged period of heavy rain would be on residents, as happened in 2013.  And this is before another 1520 houses are built, mostly on Cranleigh’s flood plain!

Car stuck in flood water Cranleigh 2013-14

December 2013

When flooding occurs it is not just from rainwater, it also contains raw sewage which bubbles up from the sewage network and mixes with the flood water.  You should not attempt to clear this away yourself without protective clothing and you should not let children play in flood water.

Report Flooding


Thames Water (24-hour customer service team on 0800 316 9800)

Waverley Borough Council Environmental Health on 01483 523393, or email

Environment Agency (0800 807 060)


Flood Water Precautions

Precautions to be aware of when dealing with flooding to prevent unnecessary additional health problems:

• keep children out of the water

• wherever possible, try to avoid coming into direct contact with floodwater. If you have to go into the water, wear waterproof gloves and rubber boots and remember to be careful of potentially concealed hazards.

• wash your hands – this is the most important way to get rid of harmful bugs. Use warm, clean water and soap before eating or preparing food, after being in contact with floodwater, sewage or with items that have been in the water. Use cold water to wash if warm is not available. If there is no clean water, use disposable soapy, wet wipes or sanitising gel to carefully clean all parts of your hands and dry them.

• keep open cuts or sores clean and use waterproof plasters to prevent them being exposed to floodwater.

• do not eat any food that has been in contact with floodwater or sewage.

Cranleigh War Memorial from this:

Cranleigh War Memorial starts to flood 25-06-16


To this in minutes:

Child in flood water Cranleigh Memorial 25-06-16

Cranleigh War Memorial 25-06-16

Cranleigh War Memorial

Cranleigh War Memorial 25-06-16

For more information on local flooding:


Share Button

Waverley’s Shocking Plan for Cranleigh

Share Button

With the recent publication of the Agenda and accompanying Local Plan documents for the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee for Monday, 27th June, 2016 7.00 pm came the shocking news that Waverley are  dumping 45% of their total housing allocation in and around Cranleigh, with a new settlement on Dunsfold Park.

Waverley’s published Local Plan documents include Strategic Sites selected across the borough. This includes two strategic sites in Cranleigh, including phase 2 of the Crest Nicholson site with an additional 101 houses off the Horsham Road, this increases the total housing number on this site to 250 houses.

Horsham Road Cranleigh Strategic Site


The other site is an amalgamation of the Berkeley Homes, Little Meadow and Knowle Park Initiative sites, creating a huge mega-site off the Alfold Road of 765 houses.  The West Cranleigh Nurseries site (Knowle Park Initiative) which was going to be refused by planning officers, then got called in by Cllr Brian Ellis, thereby by-passing officers’ decision and finally was refused by Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee.

Berkeleys KPI Little Meadow Cranleigh Strategic Site

You can look at the full meeting details and documents using the link below:

Dunsfold New Town

It is clear that Waverley are now favouring 2,600 new houses at Dunsfold Park and this has also been identified as a strategic site.


At the moment there is a planning application for 1,800 houses on this site, however, Waverley have delayed making a decision on this. You can still add your comments and objections against this application.

Any housing on Dunsfold is in addition to 1,520 houses in Cranleigh, as well as 335 in the surrounding villages.   This brings the total amount of new housing in this area to 4,455, which is equivalent in total to a new settlement the size of Cranleigh.

Dunsfold in the 2011 census had a population of 989 with 467 dwellings. Should an additional 2, 600, plus 80 dwellings be added to Dunsfold village, this will be almost a six-fold increase in the number of houses and with the proposed business expansion create a new town adjacent to Alfold and Cranleigh.

A previous attempt to develop a new town at Dunsfold Aerodrome was put forward in 2007 and sought to develop a town of exactly the same size with 2,600 houses.  This was rejected by Waverley and dismissed at Appeal as unsustainable.

The planning inspector stated at the 2009 Appeal; “The site is not in a sustainable location and little can be done to improve the existing infrastructure.” Under Overall Conclusions, he stated “The Secretary of State has concluded that the development would generate a considerable amount of additional road traffic and he concludes that this would have a severe and unacceptable impact on an overstretched local road network, and that the scheme would be unsustainable in transport terms.”

What has changed in the surrounding area since 2009 to make the road network around Cranleigh now sustainable to Waverley Planning Officers?

What are the implications for Cranleigh?

With the proposal for 1,520 more houses for Cranleigh and almost 3,000 in total in neighbouring villages the effect on Cranleigh and the high risk of coalescence between Cranleigh, Dunsfold and Alfold is huge.

In the gaps between these three areas there will be continued pressure by developers to acquire land for residential and commercial use. The Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan provides no policies for any buffer zones or strategic gaps between these settlements, and it does not suit Waverley to limit development in countryside beyond the green belt.  The pressure to develop and fill these gaps could be constant and overwhelming.

Cranleigh is deemed the nearest main service centre for Dunsfold and Alfold and there will be massive impacts on the village from all the development:

  1. Urbanisation of our village and loss of countryside. At the recent consultation regarding the relocation of the Cranleigh Primary School when the developer’s agent was asked about the urban feel to the proposed housing they replied that Waverley wanted an urban look.
  2. 4,500 houses will double the number of local cars on our road infrastructure (this is approximately the same number of houses that Cranleigh has in total NOW). That’s a potential 9,000 extra vehicles.
  3. Increased traffic will lead to increased congestion, especially on the roads in and out of Cranleigh, Bramley and Shamley Green as well as all locations along the A281.
  4. There will be a significant impact on local services including our doctors and schools.
  5. The negative impact on Air Quality from traffic emissions from petrol and diesel-engined motor vehicles include a wide variety of pollutants, principally carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter (PM10), which have an increasing negative impact on air quality, on public health and on the environment. In addition, pollutants from these sources may not only prove a problem in the immediate vicinity of these sources, but can be transported long distances.
  6. The current sewerage system has no capacity and there is no provision being made for a 100% increase in liquid effluent being discharged into Cranleigh Waters and no mitigation being proposed. Waverley have not even done a Water Cycle Study, which is usually carried out at the beginning of the Local Plan process.
  7. Cranleigh is in an area of known severe “Water Stress” as acknowledged by Surrey County Council Water Management Report Sept 2013. This combination of increased housing and limited supply could lead to serious water shortages.
  8. Requirement for large increase in electrical supply. EDF indicated to Waverley in January 2011 that Cranleigh would require an increase in capacity if there was a significant increase in population.  This also appears to have NOT been factored in so far.

Have your say

Waverley say in the Local Plan documents that:

The vitality and viability of the main centres of Farnham, Godalming, Haslemere and Cranleigh will have been safeguarded in a way that takes account of their distinctive roles.  This will have been achieved through carefully planned development, which meets the need of these centres, whilst recognising the importance of preserving and enhancing their historic character” [our emphasis]

We have never read such utter and blatant ‘spin’ regarding development in and around Cranleigh.  We know that the only reason they are dumping housing here is simply because there is NO GREEN BELT.

It’s time to let the Leader of Waverley Borough Council, Julia Potts and the planning portfolio holder, Brian Adams what you think about their decision to dump 45% of their housing allocation in and around Cranleigh

Tell them by email, always include your name and address and copy in both the Cranleigh Civic Society – and your MP Anne Milton – :

Julia Potts –

Brian Adams –

Share Button

Cranleigh Society Objects to Horsham Road

Share Button

The Cranleigh Society has written to object to the Horsham Road FULL planning application by Crest Nicholson.

You can still add your own objections here too:

Application by Crest Nicholson for full planning ref WA/2016/0417 for phase one 149 dwellings on Land At 106 And The Chantrys Bungalow And Land To SW Of Horsham Road,  Cranleigh available on the Waverley Borough Council Planning Portal.

We would like to place The Cranleigh Civic Society’s objection against WA/2016/0417 (Land at 106 and The Chantreys Bungalow and Land to the SW of Horsham Road, Cranleigh).

Firstly, we object to the raising of the ground level on the Northern Boundary of the site. This will have a detrimental effect on existing properties and lead to a further loss of privacy, as well as increase the risk of flooding on the Hitherwood Estate which is at a lower point. The attenuation ponds are all positioned on the northern edge of the site, should these SuDS fail there will be a catastrophic effect on neighbouring properties. This proposal appears to channel all surface water flow towards these existing properties.

It is also ridiculous to state that as in point “4.6. As it is proposed to limit all rainfall events to the Qbar greenfield runoff rate, it is not necessary to provide long term storage within the surface water drainage network.” of the Ardent report, as it has been proven time and time again that current greenfield rates already lead to surface water flooding of adjacent properties and the flow cannot currently be accommodated.

Flooding occurred in adjacent properties in in Dec 2013, Jan 2014 and Jan 2016. Although we see no mention of the latest flooding in this document. Savills letter dated 19 April 2016 states that they are “not aware of any flood data being available for the 2013, as it was a local event”. This is simply untrue this flooding covered almost the entire Wey Catchment and Thames River Basin.

On the grounds that this will increase flooding elsewhere, we object to the discharge of surface water from the site into Holdhurst Brook and the widening of the brook without consultation with the Environment Agency (EA). We cannot find reference to the EA approving this strategy. The Environment Agency have confirmed that Cranleigh is a flashy catchment and as such our rivers and streams respond very quickly to rainfall, the flow of water rising rapidly to a high peak and liable to flooding similarly, leading to a complete loss of flow at time of minimal rainfall.

The foul water pumping station is not situated in the centre of the site as stated in point “5.1. It is proposed to drain foul sewer from the development to a pumping station located in the centre of the site towards the northern boundary. The foul water would be pumped out to the existing Thames Water sewer beneath Horsham Road.”  But is situated on the northern boundary of the site and adjacent to existing properties, clearly outlined in Appendix D of the Ardent report. This will lead to constant noise pollution from the pump, especially as this appears to be a wet well, and the noise and disruption of tankers when pumping out is required, in addition to unpleasant odours adversely affecting residential amenity. In addition to this we believe there should be a buffer zone between the SuDS attention pond and the pumping station to guard against raw sewage entering the adjacent pond and adjacent watercourse.

We also do not agree that 88m3 is adequate onsite sewage storage capacity calculated for the development and will lead to sewage flooding in times of heavy rainfall when the sewers quickly and regularly become overwhelmed with surface water. Properties on the Horsham Road and Cromwell Place already are known to suffer from foul water flooding in their gardens, which has been reported to Thames Water.

Finally we object to the building of 2.5 storey properties on this site as the height is not at all “sympathetic to its context” and contrary to the Cranleigh Design Statement 2008.


You can read more about the Crest Nicholson application in our previous articles:







Share Button

Cranleigh Society Objects to Amlets Lane

Share Button

The Cranleigh Society has written to object to the Amlets Lane full planning application and Cala Homes request to remove or alter the pre-commencement condition to improve Cranleigh’s sewerage system.

Please add your own objections here too:

Application by Cala Homes for full planning ref WA/2016/0517 for 125 dwellings on Land South of Amlets Land and North of Roberts Way available on the Waverley Borough Council Planning Portal.

Cranleigh Society Objection:

The Cranleigh Civic Society object to the removal or amendment of Condition 40 requiring the pre-commencement and completion of a strategy for improvement of the existing sewerage system.

Any alteration in this condition would put existing residents at increased risk from sewage flooding, especially adjacent properties in Copse Edge and Summerlands.  It would also be contrary to up-to-date advice from Thames Water and Waverley’s Environmental Health Officer.

Waverley are aware of the lack of capacity in Cranleigh’s sewerage system.  This is well recorded and mentioned in Waverley’s Sustainability Appraisal Part One Sept 2014:

“Cranleigh Sewage Treatment Works (STW) and existing sewage treatment capacity is unlikely to be able to support anticipated demand. “

There is a requirement for a lead in time for an upgrade to the sewage treatment works of a minimum of three years, this will also need Ofwat funding.

The next funding round for Ofwat won’t be until 2020.  If Thames Water has a successful bid then it needs a minimum 3-5 years to carry out the work.  That takes us to a completion date between 2023 and 2025.  That’s a minimum of 7 years’ time.

There is also the ongoing problem of the ephemeral nature of Cranleigh Waters which again dried up earlier this month – 9 June 2016 (The Environment Agency has been advised).  Waverley has a responsibility under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) to ensure they do not allow the status of this river to deteriorate further.  The Environment Agency (EA) has confirmed to us that they have commenced proceedings for an Environmental Permit Review (last permit was issued in 2009) for Thames Water to discharge liquid effluent in to this river.  As you are aware the current permit does not take into account WFD limits and Thames Water are greatly exceeding the required level for phosphates, diatoms and macrophytes and at present the technology does not exist, although trials are taking place, to try and bring the level of phosphates down to reduce the detrimental effect on the river’s biodiversity.  We have had reports of catastrophic loss of fish by the local angling society in Cranleigh Waters.

This is all New Evidence and was NOT available to the Inspector at the recent Berkeley Homes appeal.

As you are also aware the EA are only a regulator with regard to the WFD and can only provide expert advice.  It is therefore up to Waverley to make a decision based on that expert advice and advice from other statutory bodies.  It is the planning authority’s responsibility to “be confident that this development will not result in unacceptable risks from pollution.

At present we can reasonably be certain that the additional sewage from this site will increase pollution in Cranleigh Waters and this will have a detrimental and undermining effect on the Wey Catchment.

Any sewage strategy for this site must include details for the sewerage upgrades required to accommodate this development, as well as mitigation measures for Cranleigh Waters, furthermore, this site must be considered to be deliverable as required under the NPPF.

You can read more about the Cala Homes, Amlets Lane site here:








Share Button

45% of Waverley Housing Coming Here!

Share Button

Waverley’s Local Plan is due to go before the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee at Waverley on Monday, 27th June, 2016 7.00 pm which includes a recommendation for 45% (4, 455 houses) of Waverley’s total housing allocation to be dumped in Cranleigh and the surrounding villages.

This puts 1,520 houses in Cranleigh alone, which is 15.4% of the total allocation for the borough, and an increase in the total housing in the village of a massive 34%.

Then there’s a further 26.4% allocated to Dunsfold Aerodrome, bringing the total allocation between just these two areas to 42% of the entire housing for Waverley.

Waverley Local Plan Housing Allocation figures June 2016

Additional 335 houses are proposed in:

Alfold – 100 houses

Dunsfold (village) – 80 houses

Ewhurst – 65 houses

Bramley – 70 houses

Wonersh and Shamley Green – 20 houses

Waverley Borough Housing Allocation June 2016

This will result in almost 11,000 more people in this part of the borough, with another 9,000 cars on the rural road network.

You can read the full document going before the Committee next Monday by clicking on the link below:

6. The Amount and Location of Housing.

The Local Plan Part One will go out to consultation and we will keep you informed of its progress.

Share Button

Is the Planning System Working?

Share Button

On 7 June  2016 two members of the Cranleigh Civic Society attended the first joint All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Civic Societies  and the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Local Democracy at Portcullis House, Westminster.

The headline was “Is the Planning System Working?” and the session was to help to explore the efficiency of the planning system and how to give communities a greater voice in the existing planning policy.

The line-up included Craig MacKinlay MP, Chair of the APPG for Civic Societies , Scott Mann MP, Vice-chair of the APPG on Local Democracy, Clive Betts MP, Baroness Parminter, and finally Lord Porter of Spalding CBE.

Neighbourhood Plans

Overall the panel recommended that people have their say through Neighbourhood Plans (NP) and it was confirmed that NPs could and should progress even if the Local Plan is not in place.

At the moment Waverley do not have a Local Plan.  However, by the end of next week we could know the number of houses that is being allocated to Cranleigh, as the Local Plan is due to go before the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee at Waverley on Monday, 27th June, 2016 7.00 pm. 

Area Planning Inspectors

We welcomed the idea raised at the meeting of individual area planning inspectors who could carry out site visits, as opposed to relying on developers’ desktop surveys.  Our experience has been that the planning authority will always rely on a desktop study rather than well documented local knowledge.

in addition there was a suggestion to give Parish and Town Councils extra powers to call in applications.  At the moment the local planning authority (Waverley) must take into account the representations of the Parish Councils. However, the representations of the Parish Councils are not necessarily
entitled to any more weight than any other representations and are given less weight than the observations of statutory consultees like the Environment Agency, Highways Authority, English Heritage  etc.

Housing Supply

It was widely recognised that developers will only release land to maximise profits, and not in line with Government targets to meet housing need.

There is no incentive for builders to flood the market, particularly in any single area like Cranleigh, as this could have a downward effect on house prices and ultimately developers’ profits.  It was suggested that only a mass social housing scheme by government could fill the gap between need and the actual number of houses being built. However we see little, if no, evidence of this coming about.

It was also pointed out that the side-effect of building enough houses would mean an overall reduction in house prices and this would be unpopular with a lot of homeowners.

There were also a few comments on the increasing change of usage of properties from commercial to residential, and in particular the loss of local shops. Although it was recognised that there had been a rapid change in the use of high streets over the past few years and there was a need for businesses to adapt to these changes, it was also pointed out that high returns to the property owners from a change of usage was a major driver.

Financial Viability

There were calls for far more transparency around financial viability on the part of developers.  Developers can currently use secretive calculations on how much profit they need to make a scheme viable to avoid paying for items like much needed affordable housing.

Housing and Planning Act 2016

There was also some concern expressed about the introduction by Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) of competition in planning to speed up the planning process with the introduction, through the Housing and Planning Act 2016,  of “Alternative Providers”, which include private companies.

Alternative providers – Introducing competition to speed up the planning process with “alternative providers”, rather than the local planning authority.  Applicants will be able to choose a “designated person” to process certain applications (pilot scheme at present). There are eligibility criteria for these “designated persons”, which include other planning authorities and private companies. The final decision still lies with the local planning authority.

Concerns raised included the independence of private companies and individuals when determining planning applications.  It was also pointed out that the limited fees charged by LPA’s to assess planning applications would not make this an attractive proposition for a private company.  The implications are that this may result in a quicker but far less rigorous study of planning applications in the future.

Other key changes to the planning system brought about by the Housing and Planning Act include:

Starter Homes  – 20% of homes delivered on new sites of more than 10 dwellings or 0.5ha should be starter homes. Starter Homes are new dwellings available for purchase by first time buyers between the age of 23 and of 40, to be sold at a discount of at least 20% of the market value, for less than £250,000 outside Greater London and £450,000 in Greater London. Starter homes will also be subject to certain restrictions on re- sale or letting.

Planning in principle  – Automatic planning permission granted for residential development allocated in a Local Plan, a Neighbourhood Plan, or Brownfield Register (local authority register of previously developed land suitable for housing development).

Local Planning – The Act enhances the powers that allow the Government to step in where local authorities fail to produce local plans for their area.

Self-Build – Support for small builders by placing a duty on local authorities to allocate land to people who want to build their own home.  Local Authorities must keep registers of people seeking land for self-build and custom housebuilding.

Our Final Thoughts

Overall we felt once again that the pressure for housing was overriding any planning strategy (other than the just build and build quickly policy, although the competing interests of developers proves that this is currently not deliverable).  Local transport and employment opportunities are not being taken into consideration and there is no plan to provide infrastructure alongside development.

it also is apparent that the NPPF (national planning policy framework) definition of “sustainability” is poorly defined and open to interpretation as required.

Waverley’s Local Plan Part One should be published next week and will contain the allocated sites for the borough.  Unfortunately we are anticipating that Waverley will want to dump the majority of their housing in Cranleigh and the surrounding villages, with a rural road infrastructure and rural bus service, on flood plains, with an inadequate sewerage system, and a river (Cranleigh Waters) that cannot take any more liquid effluent, simply because the village is situated on “countryside beyond the green belt” and as such has no protection and therefore can be deemed “sustainable”.

Share Button

Environmental Health Support Thames Water Objection

Share Button

Waverley’s Senior Environmental Health Officer has written in support of Thames Water’s objection against the request by Cala Homes for the variation of Condition 40.

The Condition was placed on the approval for outline planning for 125 houses on Amlets Lane to ensure that upgrade work to the sewerage infrastructure was carried out prior to development taking place.  Cala Homes wants to change this to a post development condition.

The Environmental Health Officer urged the utmost caution:

as the consequences of proceeding without a proper plan in place for sewage may be detrimental to the other users of the system.

Environmental Health Objection 15-06-16

Share Button

Thames Water Uphold Sewage Condition

Share Button

Thames Water have confirmed in an email to the Cranleigh Society that they:

“can confirm we will be going back to the Council proactively saying we do not agree to the change in the wording of the condition.”

This means that the pre-commencement condition on Amlets Lane (Cala Homes) to sort out Cranleigh’s creaking sewerage network prior to a house being built should remain in place.

If you want to read more about this take a look at our article


Share Button

Cranleigh Primary School Development Plans

Share Button

We have been advised that some residents have received an invitation to the Public Exhibition of the proposed residential development of 98 houses (and open space!) at the existing Cranleigh school sites at Parsonage Road and Church Lane, in addition to the relocation of Cranleigh Primary School to ‘surplus’ land at Glebelands. (This surplus land has a football pitch on it, so is in fact a school playing field).

Surrey County Council wants your views, please make sure you go to the public exhibition and let them know what you think of this scheme.

16:00 to 19:30 hrs

Residents have expressed many concerns about the loss of these sites to yet more housing in Cranleigh, especially in light of the fact that planning permission has been granted for nearly 850 new homes with a further 120 dwellings on the Hewitts Industrial Estate site at Appeal.

Surely we need more school sites now not less, or am I missing something?” one resident has asked us.

Existing Cranleigh Primary Schools sites


Existing primary school sites

There are also concerns about parking and pedestrian access on the proposed new school site.  “The new school will only have one narrow access point via the Royal British Legion – onto the corner of Rowlands Road. Where will the parents park? Imagine the traffic chaos outside Glebelands School at 8:45am from coaches, parents and residents from the new developments.”

At present, parents can access the existing schools from Parsonage Road, Dewlands Lane and by pedestrian link to the High Street, providing adequate and fairly dispersed parking near by.

The pedestrian link to the new school will be up the footpath opposite the shop ‘Bone’ on the Common. There are worries that this area of the Common will become an unofficial car park as parents avoid the more congested area around the school.  “Has a traffic assessment been done by someone who actually understands the frustrations of the school run?” a resident has asked us.

The application can be viewed on the Waverley Borough Council Planning Portal the ref is SO/2016/0004.

The following text is taken from the application documents:

“The proposed scheme is for the erection of 98 dwellings, including 31 affordable dwellings, with associated parking spaces, gardens and open space. The proposal would comprise a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings. Access would be provided from Parsonage Road and Dewlands Lane.”

“The site comprises two parcels of land to the north of Cranleigh High Street, which are currently occupied by Cranleigh C of E Junior School (Site ‘A’) and Cranleigh C of E Infant School (Site ‘B’). The total site area for the two sites is 2.48 ha. The sites currently comprise single storey school buildings and associated play and parking space. Site ‘A’ also contains a portakabin occupied by Mulberry Living Ltd, which is a private healthcare provider.”

Waverley Planning Officers have also stated the following:

“There are several proposals for residential development in and around Cranleigh namely:

• Land at Knowle Lane – 425 dwellings – WA/2014/0912 – appeal allowed

• Land south of Amlets Lane – 125 dwellings – WA/2014/1038 – outline permission granted, reserved matters under consideration

• Hewitts Industrial Estate – 120 dwellings – WA/2014/2384 – refused, currently at appeal

• Land at 106 and Chantreys Bungalow and land to the south west of Horsham Road – 149 dwellings – WA/2014/1754 – outline permission granted, reserved matters under consideration

• Little Meadow – 75 dwellings – WA/2015/0478 – pending decision

• Land west of Cranleigh Nurseries and North of Knowle Park – 265 dwellings – WA/2015/1569 – pending decision.

Were the above planning applications to be granted, and those currently at appeal allowed, there would be a cumulative increase of 1,159 dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the application site.

However, to date, only three of the above schemes have been granted outline permission, and the reserved matters for those proposal have not yet been agreed.

Therefore it is considered that at this stage the development would not cumulate with other developments such that significant environmental impacts would occur.”

The Cranleigh Society vehemently refutes the point that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required and the cumulative effect of all the development in Cranleigh will not have a significant impact on the environment.

Copy of Letter Elizabeth Sims, Head of Planning Waverley Borough Council

Our initial observations are as follows:

There is no objectively assessed need for yet more housing in Cranleigh.

A significant area of the Cranleigh Primary School site is in flood zone 3 and therefore at high risk of flooding (as is the new proposed school site it appears from the Environment Agency flood map for planning).

EA flood map for planning school sites

We also have the ongoing issue with sewage in Cranleigh, which brings into serious question the deliverability of these houses.

There appears to be inadequate parking provision in the notional design.

Roof heights appear to be extremely tall, with 2.5 and 3 storeys dominating the street scene and neighbouring homes.

Furthermore, the density is particularly high, cramming in almost 40 dwellings per hectare (dph). The overall average dph in Cranleigh is 17.3.

Cranleigh Primary Schools proposed elevation plans


Proposed elevation plans

Share Button