Cranleigh Waters Partnership Meeting

Share Button

Members of Cranleigh Civic Society met with representatives of the Environment Agency (EA) and Thames Water on Friday 16 December 2016 at Thames Water’s offices in Shalford.  Surrey Wildlife Trust (SWT) and Waverley Borough Council were invited but were unable to attend on the day.  However, Waverley have confirmed that they will be inviting all parties to a meeting in the New Year.

It was a productive meeting, with all parties keen to explore pollution issues in Cranleigh Waters and opportunities to improve the failing status of the river.

All attendees stressed the importance of the next stage of Waverley’s water cycle study and the news that Amec Group Ltd had been appointed to carry this out was welcomed.  This study is required as evidence for housing allocations in the Local Plan.  Although a water cycle scoping report was produced by Capita  (August 2016), it was recognised that the far more detailed stage two of the report  was required to identify constraints regarding  specific water supply and wastewater discharge, together with identifying upgrades required to the network and the accompanying timeline; taking into account costs, funding and available technology.

The EA confirmed that they had found Waverley’s Local Plan “unsound” based on the evidence presented to date.

Thames Water advised us that the trials to reduce phosphate levels in sewage effluent, should be available in Summer 2017.  It is not known yet whether the results of these trials are encouraging, or cost effective.  The situation remains that at present it is “technically infeasible” to reduce phosphate levels in discharged effluent to those required by the Water Framework Directive (WFD).

Cranleigh Civic Society is continuing its work with the EA and SWT on Cranleigh Waters with our Volunteer River Wardens.  We are currently requesting permission from landowners to access a longer stretch of the river so that we can carry out invertebrate studies and identify areas for possible restoration work, as well as the reason for continued low flow rates.

It was generally recognised that recent dredging work had severely impacted on flow rates and the ability of the river to maintain aquatic life.

Thames Water maintain that current expansion work at Elmbridge sewage treatment plant is to improve current resilience and not to accommodate growth.  They advised us that the plant would need to be expanded to deal with sewage from the significant housing estates granted in and around Cranleigh.  This would undoubtedly have a further impact on water quality.  However, it was not clear whether this upgrade work would involve a full planning application and Thames Water would not commit to carrying out an Odour Impact Assessment.

We stressed the need for this impact study in order to make sure that residents’ quality of life was not further impacted by odour nuisance.  Thames Water confirmed that complaints about odour from the sewage treatment works (SWT) had increased but they maintained that it was not clear that this corresponded to an increase in odour from the plant, or was due to the Cranleigh Society highlighting to residents that they could complain.  We would stress to residents that they should continue to report any odours from the STW in order that Thames Water have more accurate records.

Please continue to report odour nuisance to Thames Water email or 24-hour customer service team on 0800 316 9800 and to
Waverley Borough Council Environmental Health on 01483 523393.

Finally we discussed issues surrounding water supply and the recent spate of burst water mains. This will be discussed further at our next meeting.

In addition to the meeting in the New Year with Waverley, Thames Water is also helpfully arranging further meetings with their drainage and water supply departments.

Share Button

Dunsfold Park Decision Called-in

Share Button

Dunsfold Park WA/2015/2395  was granted permission by Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee (JPC) on 14 December in a recorded vote  of 10 Councillors in favour and 8 against.

Before the application went to committee there had been several reports of the application being called-in to the Secretary of State by Anne Milton MP, and the 11 Parish Councils, which form the Joint Parishes.

Subsequently on Thursday 15 December it was confirmed that a planning inspector had in fact been appointed to carry out an inquiry into the granted application. The inspector will report their recommendation to the Secretary of State who will then make the final decision on Dunsfold Park.

Calling-in Process

This is where an application goes to The Secretary of State (SoS) for Communities and Local Government, Sajid Javid MP, for his final consideration and determination.

Applications are called-in where planning issues of more than local importance are involved. This can include applications which:

  • Are of national significance.
  • Conflict with government policy.
  • Impact on long-term economic growth.
  • Have significant effects beyond their immediate locality.
  • Are controversial.
  • Raise significant architectural and urban design issues.
  • Involve national security or foreign governments

Where an application is called in, a planning inspector is appointed to hold an inquiry into the application and the Secretary of State takes the findings of this inquiry into account when they make their final decision.

The Dunsfold Debate

On the night of the JPC meeting, Surrey County Council Highways Department and the Environment Agency maintained their objections to the application on traffic impact and water quality.

The debate lasted over four hours.  Points in favour of the application included the total number of dwellings, including 30% affordable housing, which would meet a significant percentage of the borough’s housing need, as well as significant employment opportunities being provided on site (Dunsfold is already one of the biggest employment sites in the borough), a new primary school and a local bus service funded in perpetuity.  Cllr Foryszewski said:

 “This is a development we can be proud of, that can be exemplary, built for the future, to address how we live and work.”

Cllr Cockburn, also spoke in favour of the application saying that:

“We have been saying for years, use brownfield sites first, especially in Farnham and Cranleigh.”

However, councillors also voiced concerns about traffic. It was pointed out that significant impacts on the surrounding highways had led to the dismissal of the previous planning Appeal in 2009.  Furthermore, the robustness of traffic modelling  was brought into question and was said to be “more of an art than a science” .  The extent of objectors and the evidence they had submitted, including a professional transport study, should, it was noted, be taken seriously.  Although it was recognised that there would be considerable contributions from the applicants, amounting to a package of approximately £40M, which is proportionally far higher than those negotiated with other Cranleigh developers, the opportunity to deliver extensive road improvements, due to the limiting characteristics of the A281,  was questioned.

Cranleigh Civic Society would stress that we feel that these same characteristics should apply to the over 1,500 dwellings being proposed for our village too.

Cllr Mulliner (Haslemere East and Grayswood Ward) pointed out that this was the most significant site in Waverley and highly contentious,  having had over 5,000 objections submitted against it. He disagreed with officers on the point of prematurity with regard to the Local Plan, which he pointed out was at an advanced stage, having been agreed by full council two weeks previously, and was being submitted for examination by the inspector two days later on 16 December 2016 (the Local plan has 3,500 objections against it).

Dunsfold Park is listed as a Strategic Site in the Local Plan with a total of 2,600 dwellings proposed for the site.  Cllr  Mulliner expressed his concern that the application should not be determined until the Inspector had rigorously examined the Local Plan and agreed that the Dunsfold site should be included. Otherwise, he said, this could be predetermining the scale, position and phasing of 25% of Waverley’s entire housing allocation.  He went on to state that this was “clearest possible case of predetermination and pre-emption of the Inspector’s role”.

The Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) figure of 519 dwellings per year for the Waverley borough was also commented on.  This figure has already been challenged by the Neil MacDonald Report (September 2016).  The report concluded that the OAN figure should be reduced by approximately 120 dwellings per year. Over the lifetime of the local plan this could equate to a total decrease of 2,280 dwellings.

The MacDonald  concludes that:

The key issue emerging from this report is the significantly different picture painted by the most recent projections and population statistics from that set out in the SHMA. Whilst the SHMA suggests that the full objectively assessed need for housing in Waverley is 519 homes a year 2013-33, the analysis in this report indicates that an up to date estimate would lie in the range 400 +/- 30 homes a year.”

( SHMA = Strategic Housing Market Assessment.  The last assessment was carried out in September 2015 by GL Hearn and set the annual housing need for Waverley at 519 dwellings – see page 117)

GL Hearn, authors of the SHMA, in their response to the MacDonald report in November 2016  accepted the main point of the report.

5.13 In conclusion we recognise that if repeating this work today a different figure is likely to emerge, particularly as we would have a different starting point. This reflects the availability of data. However our approach is one that reflects the NPPF and PPG and remains a sound basis for planning.”

We now await the Inspector’s report to the SoS, which may take a couple of months to be issued.

You can watch the full Waverley meeting from 14 December 2016 here on YouTube.


Share Button

Dunsfold Park Goes Before Committee

Share Button

Dunsfold  Park planning application goes before the Joint Planning Committee at Waverley this Wednesday 14 December at 6:30pm.


If you are planning to attend the meeting we would suggest you arrive at least an hour before, as there is bound to be considerable interest in this development.

The application includes 1,800 residential dwellings, in addition to 7,500sqm care accommodation; a local centre to comprise retail, financial and professional, cafes/restaurant/takeaway and/or public house up to a total of 2,150sqm; new business uses including offices, and research and development industry up to a maximum of 3,700sqm; light and general industry up to a maximum of 7,500sqm; storage and distribution up to a maximum of 11,000sqm; a further 9,966sqm of flexible commercial space; non-residential institutions including health centre, relocation of existing Jigsaw School into new premises and provision of new community centre up to a maximum of 9,750sqm and a two-form entry Primary School.

The application also includes a new sewage treatment plant.  We have continued to raise concerns about water quality and the discharge point of liquid sewage effluent (by-product of the treatment process) from the site.

The Environment Agency in a letter to Waverley Borough Council on 6 December 2016 have objected to the application, stating that:

“In accordance with paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the associated National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) we object to the proposed development as submitted for the reasons outlined below and on the basis that it may have a significant adverse impact on water quality.”

Read the full EA letter here

The current proposal now appears to favour discharging into Loxwood Stream (sometimes referred to as the River Lox).  The previous proposal had included the use of the Wey & Arun Canal but this has now been ruled out as unsuitable.  A new report published against the planning application “Risk assessment for treated sewage disposal” Ref: 65550TN1D1 and dated November 2016 states that:

“Indeed, for the purposes of this assessment, Loxwood Stream has been taken forward as the potential receiving watercourse. This is based on the fact that the pro rata calculation to  estimate flow at the point of discharge would seem to be more reliable than that undertaken for Cranleigh Water, where the influence of sewage treatment effluent downstream of the proposed Dunsfold Park outfall makes any pro rata calculation potentially unreliable without benefit of more detailed flow data.”

Cranleigh Civic Society is now a member of the Cranleigh Waters Partnership, along with Thames Water, the Environment Agency and Surrey Wildlife Trust.  Our next meeting takes place on 15 December 2016.

Elmbridge Road Sewage Treatment Works (STW) is currently exceeding its original capacity for a maximum 15,000 residents and Cranleigh Waters, into which sewage effluent is discharged, is already failing in terms of water quality.

Permission has already been GRANTED for nearly 800 new houses in Cranleigh and the following pending applications will also be sending their sewage to be treated in Cranleigh and will discharge sewage effluent into Cranleigh Waters:

WA/2016/2207 Knowle Park Initiative (West Cranleigh Nurseries) – now in name of A2Dominion Developments Limited- Alfold Road, 265 dwellings

WA/2015/1381 Springbok Estate, Alfold 480 dwellings and primary school (at Appeal)

WA/2014/2384 Hewitts Industrial Estate, Cranleigh 120 dwellings (at Appeal)

WA/2016/1921 Thakeham Homes, Elmbridge Road, Cranleigh 58 dwellings

Waverley Borough Council has not raised any concerns about the impact on water quality with regard to these applications totalling over 1,700 dwellings.

Share Button

Gate House Appeal Dismissed

Share Button

The Appeal against the decision by Waverley Borough Council to refuse permission for an application WA/2015/2006 to demolish The Gate House, Knowle Lane, Cranleigh GU6 8RD and replace with 8 dwellings has been dismissed!

The Inspector was particularly concerned about whether the proposal would result in material harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, mainly Magnolia Cottage, Knowle Lane, with particular regard to outlook and visual impact, daylight and overlooking.  He also concluded that it was not in keeping with the local character.  We welcome his decision.

You can view a full copy of the Appeal decision here.

The Inspector’s conclusion was:

“45. Although I have found that there would be no material harm caused to employment land supply, heritage assets, parking and highway safety and flooding, the harm that I have found to character and appearance and to living conditions is significant, and is sufficient for me to find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. Thus, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.”

You can read more about the application here in our article:

Gate House, Knowle Lane, Cranleigh

Share Button

Expansion Work Continues at Sewage Treatment Plant

Share Button

Despite ongoing complaints of sewage odour from residents living near to Elmbridge Road Sewage Treatment Works,  work has commenced on two additional 30m diameter open-air filtration beds.


Members of Cranleigh Civic Society are extremely disappointed that Surrey County Council has maintained its position that planning permission is not required for the expansion work, despite evidence of ongoing odour nuisance and serious pollution issues in Cranleigh Waters – the river the sewage works discharges into.

For some time residents living near to the sewage treatment works have been emailing us about the effect of sewage odour on their homes.  Residents report being unable to use their gardens because of the overwhelming smell of sewage and of distressing fly infestations. Although we asked Thames Water to carry out an odour impact assessment, nothing appeared to be forthcoming, so we arranged for an odour survey on behalf of residents living  within an 800m radius of the sewage works, in accordance with Thames Water’s “Odour Zone” criteria.  The results were sent to Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council.

The reason for the expansion work has not been firmly established, however, Thames Water recently informed us that this 30% expansion is in readiness for the new housing estates being planned for Cranleigh and surrounding villages, as unfortunately most of the untreated sewage is headed this way. However, other residents have reported a very different story from Thames Water, who have advised them that the work is simply to upgrade the system to accommodate current users.  Cranleigh Civic Society is meeting with representatives from Thames Water on 16 December 2016, as part of Cranleigh Waters Partnership and this is one of the queries we will be taking up with them.  The Environment Agency and Surrey Wildlife Trust will also be attending.

Cranleigh Civic Society discovered that the sewage treatment plant expansion work was being carried out without planning permission back in October, this means that the effect on residents of any additional odour originating from these extra filtration beds is not being taken into account.

We believe that Surrey County Council should have undertaken an Environmental Impact Assessment to investigate not only odour but also pollution issues in Cranleigh Waters from additional liquid sewage effluent. On 29-Sep-16 we challenged the council to this effect and their response was to undertake a scoping report, subsequently issued on 11-Oct-16, which concluded that Thames Water did not need to get planning permission as the works came under what is called “Permitted Development”.

On behalf of residents, we have studied relevant Government legislation and we disagree, and have outlined our reasons to Surrey County Council and to Anne Milton MP.  However, Surrey are regrettably sticking to their original decision.

We have also sought the assistance of Waverley Environmental Health and on 7-Nov-16 wrote to them asking for an Abatement Notice to stop works on site until a full Environmental Impact Assessment was done. We also sent them a copy of the Society’s July Odour Survey that residents took part in.

In a telephone call on 23-Nov-16, Environmental Health told us, that after consulting with the Waverley Planning Department, they would not be taking our survey results into account as it was carried out by a pressure group, instead going forward they would be asking affected residents to fill in a diary of days on which they experience odour nuisance. This appears to ignore any previous history of odour problems whilst the sewage works expansion progresses unchecked.

We think that residents’ prior complaints should be taken into account.

If you have been affected by odour nuisance from the sewage works, are worried about the risk of increasing odour arising from the current expansion, and you think that the impact on your home should be considered, please write to, or email, your MP Anne Milton.  Please always include your FULL name and address with any correspondence.

Anne Milton MP email:
or write to: 17A Home Farm, Loseley Park, Guildford, GU3 1HS

Please copy Cranleigh Civic Society in on your email/letter, if possible, prior to our next meeting with Thames Water on 16-Dec-16, where we will be discussing this matter, as well as concerns about ongoing and increasing pollution of Cranleigh Waters.

Cranleigh Civic Society email:
or write to: 18 Brookside, Cranleigh GU6 8DA



Thank you for speaking up for Cranleigh.

Share Button

Amlets Residents’ Liaison Group

Share Button

Cranleigh Civic Society has established a Liaison Group with CALA Homes and residents living near to the Amlets Lane development site.

We hope that this will prove to be an effective way to keep residents informed during the ongoing building phase.

The group met with representatives of CALA, Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council (Drainage) on 22 November 2016 on the Amlets site to discuss concerns, particularly about drainage and safety concerns regarding construction traffic entering and leaving the site along the narrow lane.


The plan to manage the construction traffic is yet to be finalised, however, the current proposal by Surrey Highways is for traffic to enter the site from the western side of Amlets via Smithwood Common and then to exit to the east via Barhatch Lane, Ewhurst Road and the High Street.


We are extremely concerned about the impact of this traffic on the High Street and local businesses, in addition to the cumulative effect of this and construction traffic to and from other major sites due to start building soon.

The Liaison Group has expressed major concerns to Richard Cooper of Surrey Highways, and requested that the traffic avoid the high street and instead use a manned signal controlled system using the same access and exit route.

Email from Liaison Group sent 4 December 2016:

Dear Mr Cooper,

We have just received from Cala Homes their Construction Traffic Management Plan for the development off Amlets Lane. We, the local community and the Cranleigh Society, have formed a Liaison Group with Cala Homes. This group operates under the stewardship of the Cranleigh Society.
  • We hear that you have imposed a specific route plan upon Cala Homes which, on the face of it, is about to cause untold misery on the residents of Cranleigh through the inclusion of Cranleigh High Street. The Access Route from Guildford to Amlets Lane involves the most narrow part of Amlets Lane where the road width is only 4.8m wide and where two HGVs cannot pass. Hauling heavy and bulky construction equipment down this part of the Lane represents a significant hazard/inconvenience to those travelling in the opposite direction. Liz Townsend, Chair of the Cranleigh Society, has spoken with Stuart Forrester of Cala Homes and had suggested operating a single lorry system along Amlets, using a radio system with a person at the Cranleigh school end of Amlets and the site gatekeeper and allowing one lorry only either arriving or leaving along the road. These lorries will be heavily laden when leaving with soil. This scheme would involve more planning but would remove the necessity to use the High Street for the return journey, although we notice that the CEMP (page26, para2) refers to “active vehicle control in stipulated times”. This appears to be what we are requesting but used in a more intelligent manner. 
  • Traffic will at present be leaving the site exit via Barhatch Lane en route to the already chaotic Cranleigh High Street. This is especially so during “school run” times and appears to be a recipe for gridlock, bearing in mind that there will be several other concurrent developments e.g. Crest Nicholson in Horsham Road and the very large Berkeley Homes development of 425 dwellings just behind the High Street. These points have been raised in objections to WBC over the past three years and are now becoming reality.
  • There are several more approved developments in the pipeline, all of which will wish to commence building works before this project is completed so the situation can only get worse.
Were these other projects taken into account when you dictated the departure route for this development?
  • There are, in fact, five schools which are directly affected by the present route plan and not two. The Cranleigh Society/Cala Homes option would indeed affect only two schools. By including the High Street and Ewhurst Road, Park Mead School (many children access the school via the Ewhurst Road), St Cuthbert Mayne RC School (where parents park in numbers on both sides of Ewhurst Road for drop-off and collection, thus effectively narrowing the road), St. Joseph’s School, Cranleigh senior school and Cranleigh prep school are all affected.  Allowing construction traffic to operate between 16.00 and 17.00 will have implications for the prep school. The pupils leave at 16.30 when parents, in their cars, pick them up. Glebelands school, off the High Street, is less directly affected, although many of its pupils catch buses and use the High Street shops after school.
  • Surely this traffic flow problem must be seen and resolved in the round, from a list of approved and likely to be approved applications obtainable from Waverley Borough Council rather than treating each application in isolation. One may be forgiven for wondering if anyone attached to Surrey County Council has any regard for what happens in Cranleigh. The use of the High Street, and the disruption that it will cause, is not necessary and illustrates the folly of permitting uncontrolled development in Cranleigh due to a lack of sound judgement from statutory agencies.We assume that the Highways Department is responsible for efforts to maintain a reasonable traffic flow throughout its area. The present plan will certainly fail on that score. The Cranleigh Society proposal (above) entails more effort but should provide a happier and safer outcome for the residents of Cranleigh.
We, the Liaison Group, would appreciate hearing your reasons for imposing this route on Cala Homes, bearing in mind the chaos that it will cause in the centre of Cranleigh and its effect on the five schools.. 

Mr Cooper has confirmed that the final decision on the route has not yet been made, however, if you feel strongly that the High Street should be avoided, or would like to make any comments about the route, please add them below, or email the Society at and we will pass these on.
Share Button

NO Affordable Homes in Berkeley Homes Phase 1

Share Button

Berkeleys has applied for WA/2016/2160 Phase 1 development of the site providing no affordable housing and with no timeline for the delivery of the remainder of the site.

Despite the Inspector stating clearly at Appeal that Berkeley Homes was not to be given permission to develop only part of the site south of the High Street off Knowle Lane, it appears that this exclusive gated development might be allowed to take place.

The market housing being applied for is comprised of:

11 x 3 bedroom houses

30 x 4 bedroom houses

14 x 5 bedroom houses

The streetscene proposed is:street-scene-drawings-phase-1

Housing Layout:


Add Your Comments

We appreciate that like us you may have written several times to Waverley about this application but it is important that we continue. Please add your own comments against this application WA/2016/2160 on the Waverley Planning Portal.

Full instructions on how to comment are provided here.

We have submitted our objection to this application.  The following is a summary of our points:

  • There is no provision for affordable housing within Phase 1 of the development and the timescale for future phases is unknown. This does not comply with the need, as highlighted by the Inspector at Appeal (point 79), for the delivery of “a large number of affordable homes” to be delivered “speedily”:

“79. As for benefits, the 425 dwellings would make a significant contribution to an acknowledged shortfall in deliverable sites for the five-year period, and would help boost the area’s supply generally. The new homes can be delivered speedily, as confirmed by the appellant. The Council recognises the need for a large number of affordable homes in the Borough. Third parties too made an eloquent case for providing more affordable homes, given the difficulties faced by young people in accessing affordable accommodation. Delivery of affordable and market homes in the context of the constraints that apply to the Borough would therefore comprise the most significant social benefit to flow from the proposed development and would be consistent with the NPPF’s basic imperative of delivery.”

  • These homes do not meet housing need in the borough as outlined in the West Surrey SHMA September 2015.
  • This urban style gated development is out of keeping with its rural location off the High Street. This creates a sense of separation, and will have a negative effect on the relationship with, and inclusion of, the broader Cranleigh community.  There is no justification or requirement for this in the setting of Cranleigh and is certainly not in line with the design and access statement:


  • The dwellings that front on to Knowle Lane are excessively high and overbearing (height 8.5 and 10.5m mainly at the site entrance). They do not blend into the rural location, on the edge of the settlement and will have a harmful and urbanising effect.  They will dominate the street scene from Knowle Lane and will have a detrimental effect on visual amenity.  This is contrary to the Cranleigh Design Statement 2008.   The council recently requested that buildings on the Amlets Lane site in Cranleigh should be reduced.
  • Details of Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDs) for this phase are incomplete and with this lack of detail it is impossible to ascertain if this will not increase flooding elsewhere. It appears that the sole strategy for the disposal of surface water is to discharge run-off at a restricted rate to the Littlemead Brook, which is a watercourse that runs to the south of the site.  No mitigation for this run-off is provided, as required in line with Waverley’s responsibilities under the Water Framework Directive.  Furthermore, there does not appear to be any attenuation storage figures provided.  It is extremely important that revised climate change allowances by the government and the Environment Agency published in February 2016 are considered.  These now require developers to assess a range of climate range allowances from 25% to 70% above the 1% AEP as part of planning applications.  This is particularly important bearing in mind the fluvial and surface water flood risk on this site as shown by the Environment Agency surface water flood map:
  • berkely-homes-ea-surface-water-flood-map
  • To protect the site from flood risk, it is necessary to secure the FRA mitigation measures and recommendations and to ensure that the crossings/bridges are constructed in accordance with conditions 17 and 18. Knowle Lane is recorded on Surrey County Council’s wet spot database and it is important that emergency access and egress from the site is maintained in the event of a flood.
  • This application, without a condition and timescale for delivery for the remainder of the site contravenes point 81 of the appeal decision which refuted the Council’s suggestion to develop only part of the site “The Council’s suggestion that only part of the site be developed would also involve loss of countryside but without meaningful contribution to the area’s housing needs.”:

“81. Turning then to the overall planning balance. The social and economic benefits of the scheme are considerable. The need for new housing in the area is undisputed and in Cranleigh greenfield sites are expected to make a contribution to the overall supply. The homes would be delivered speedily on land that sits high in the sustainability ranking of sites. Having accepted the need for greenfield sites to help fulfil the Borough’s housing obligations, the loss of an undesignated piece of countryside abutting the urban edge of Cranleigh, with limited harm to the wider landscape, would be outweighed by the social and economic gains identified. The Council’s suggestion that only part of the site be developed would also involve loss of countryside but without meaningful contribution to the area’s housing needs.”

You can submit your comments online or email your comments to the case officer Jennifer Samuelson direct on quoting ref WA/2016/2160 and include your FULL name and Postal Address.

Or write to Waverley Borough Council at (please quote ref WA/2016/2160 and include your FULL name and Postal Address):
Jennifer Samuelson
Planning Officer
Waverley Borough Council
The Burys

Share Button