Representatives from Cranleigh Society have been meeting regularly with Waverley Borough Council representatives to try and keep up to date with all the developments that effect our village, as well as giving us an opportunity to put your questions to them and try to help them to make better decisions and to share them more effectively.
Much was discussed, however we have added the main points from the minutes below:
Planning & Infrastructure
Cranleigh Society reported that at a meeting with four Surrey County Council Officers Cranleigh Society was advised that there were no funds to complete a study of the A281. CCS believes it is the role of the Neighbourhood Plan to get involved in every aspect.
It was confirmed that small funds have been awarded for the A281 as part of the upgrade improvement plan.
CCS asked for clarity regarding developers’ payments for infrastructure improvements – known as S106 and also CIL – for Dunsfold. WBC explained that the CIL Draft Charging Schedule was subject to extensive consultation by the Council during its preparation – and has now been passed and there will be an opportunity to collect extra funds from the end of March 2019 from some applications – but not Dunsfold.
Planning permission has already been granted by the Secretary of State for the development of 1800 of the allocated homes at Dunsfold Aerodrome.
The development includes the provision of extensive on-site facilities, as well as financial obligations and off-site infrastructure. n.b. this does not include recycling! The agreed Section 106 (S.106), is directly connected to its development and its impact. S.106 is the right mechanism they claim.
As highlighted by the Examiner, the CIL National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) also supports the approach of differentiating this strategic site (‘Zone C’), with a zero CIL rating. The Examiner concluded that “the zero CIL rating for ‘Zone C’ comprising this strategic site is supported by the evidence”.
The zero CIL rating at Dunsfold Aerodrome (‘Zone C’) will apply to the whole strategic allocation in Local Plan Part 1 (2600 homes). As recommended by the Examiner, “should the new settlement be considered for further future expansion beyond the current 2,600 unit allocation, as suggested by some, this is a matter that would need to be addressed at the relevant time by the Council”.
Asked why this adoption would not take place for some 6 months, WBC replied that there were several reasons including:
Stakeholders have an interest
To allow key developers to achieve planning permission
To give the development industry a reasonable lead-in time
CCS raised the subject of WBC holding confidential meetings with Developers. We were advised that Pre-application meeting minutes are on the Council website and such discussions will always and should take place in private – that meetings with Developers are of a confidential nature and that it is correct that they should be allowed to do so. However, Ward Councillors are consulted and brought in at the appropriate stage.
WBC stated that since 2015 the rules regarding S106 monies have changed, requests for contributions now have to be more specific.
Waverley has invested in a new software system that will process historic S106 agreements over the past 5 years which will mean that information will be far more accessible in the future. It is hoped that this project will be completed by Christmas.
CCS said that the Thames Water permit (sewage capacity) expired in 2009 and that Thames Water has not come up with a feasible plan to deal with the phosphates etc. and that they are not going to carry out an upgrade of their permits. There is a need to lobby Government on this issue. WBC suggested reiterating in writing aspects of this issue as part of Grampian conditions.
Foul effluent flowing into Cranleigh Waters?
Thames Water has confirmed that only treated effluent is released into Cranleigh Waters in compliance with their discharge consent. WBC approached the Environment Agency for their views on this as they issue the discharge consent and monitor the situation. Awaiting a reply.
Terry Stewart enquired about the proposed programme for the Leisure Centre – detailed consultation will begin with support of external consultants to identify potential sites and is anticipated to conclude by March 2019. This consultation will include key local stakeholders and CCS will be included.
CCS asked the Leader about external communication with CCS. We were told that it would be helpful if CCS could communicate with:
All Resident Associations
Chamber of Commerce
It was suggested that the next meeting could be held in Cranleigh and to also meet with the Parish Councillors. It was agreed to continue to arrange meetings every 4 months.
WBC suggested that a future agenda with the Parish Council could include:
Key projects in Cranleigh
Joined up lobbying
When asked about money available for repairs WBC responded that there is a need to think more creatively around grants for repairs for which Local Authorities are unable to apply for.
WBC reported that the Communications team are reviewing ideas for Newsletters and social media.
We are Fed up about Surrey’s cuts. Are they closing our tip? Our library? Cranleigh – like many places – is suffering from County Council panic – Surrey CC has a massive shortfall of income and the central government is withdrawing all grants from next April.
In the meantime our councils have to pay for roads, police, rubbish collection, elderly care, special needs education and care and employ many staff – all of whom must receive pensions when they retire – a further massive cost as the population is ageing.
This is why they need all these consultations- PLEASE RESPOND TO SURREY! COMPLETE all consultations you can – don’t let the politicians and officers believe that we are not interested!
CRANLEIGH “COMMUNITY RECYCLING CENTRE” (CRC)
The deadline for responding to the consultation is 4th January 2019.
Even if you objected to the 2017 plans to close the CRC you MUST OBJECT AGAIN – your last objection is no longer valid.
A joint objection counts as ONE objection so, for instance, a husband and wife should send in a separate objection for TWO objections to be effective.
To have your say visit surreycc.gov.uk/consultations and complete the questionnaire which includes section “5. Other Comments” where you will find a full page “box” where you can express the concerns you have in your own words. The next page of our message shows matters you may wish to raise – but please do not copy these comments word for word but use your own style and wordings. Also, of course, you should add any other issues you feel must be considered.
It is absolutely imperative that Surrey County Council receive a HUGE response from Cranleigh so please contact your friends and neighbours, urging them to respond. A poor response will be interpreted as a lack of concern – DO NOT LET THIS HAPPEN!
** IF WE LOSE OUR CRC THERE IS THE VERY REAL RISK WE WILL NEVER GET IT BACK! **
Possibleobjections to include in the full page “box” in the Surrey County Council questionnaire.
The Waverley Local Plan has a minimum of 1,700 new homes in Cranleigh.
An allowance must be made for circa 500 new homes in Alfold, Ewhurst and Dunsfold village.
Outline permission has been granted for 1,800 new homes at Dunsfold Park – with another 800 to follow. There is a lot of space on this site for even more new homes.
Potentially, the size of Cranleigh will DOUBLE.
It is absolutely ridiculous and sheer lunacy to even CONSIDER closing the Cranleigh CRC with all this new housing coming our way.
Cranleigh to Witley or Guildford by road is 10 -12 miles and driving there, keeping to the speed limits) and with no delays takes at least 30 minutes – so one hour of driving for a return trip.
Think of the pollution, fuel cost and wasted time.
What happens if there are delays and you arrive late – the CRC is closed?
DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has just confirmed that serious fly tipping has increased by 43% from 2016/2017 to 2017/2018. Fly tipping can only get much more worse with CRCs closing – for a very short term financial saving.
REMEMBER – Use your own wordings and add any other objections and views you may have on this matter!It has been confirmed that the freehold of the Cranleigh CRC site is owned by Surrey County Council and, as it is located next to the Nanhurst flats and the A281, we consider it highly likely that SCC will be very tempted to sell the freehold for housing to put some cash in their coffers – if this happened there would be no possibility of the CRC reopening.
PLEASE ACT NOW!
AND JOIN US AT THE THREE HORSESHOES ON THE 2ND MONDAY EACH MONTH – from 6.30 onwards.
Testing of Cranleigh’s rivers has always taken place occasionally and now Surrey Wildlife Trust is helping to get more testing done and some improvements made.
Chemical levels are measured by groups of volunteers as are the numbers of river fly larvae, which indicate the health levels.
It is a fact that all sewage works clean the water as best they can before letting it go into the rivers. Here are two more facts:
The levels of chemicals that remain, although allowed by government, are not good for wild life and cause the depletion of fish and their natural foods.
In a flood situation, foul untreated sewage does come up in people’s homes which is why all the possessions have to be destroyed in the worst cases.
River dipping is a much needed and scientific past-time that some of us have undertaken on everyone’s behalf . We are hunting for river-flies as they are known, the tiny lavae of various species such as cadis fly, which are collected, counted and returned to the rivers. Afterwards the data collected is viewed by experts.
At a recent dip we found just one lava along with shrimps, and so the water is probably not to their liking, too many chemicals from somewhere.
We were dipping near to the back of Cranleigh Golf and Country club.
We’re constantly told that it’s good to recycle our waste where we can, however the of closing of local facilities that enable us to do this means that many do not. Hence, surrounding areas begin to see an increase in fly-tipping.
The latest news from our neighbours in Farnham is that their recycling centre is now under threat.
The below press article is taken from The Herald online, which also includes details of how you can oppose the closure:
THE Herald has launched a Don’t Dump the Dump campaign today – backing widespread calls of residents and councillors to save Farnham’s threatened community recycling centre.
Surrey County Council is currently consulting on further cuts to the county’s tips – with two of the three proposed cost-cutting options involving the permanent closure of six “smaller, less effective” community recycling centres across the county, including Bourne Mill in Farnham.
More than 1,500 people have since signed a petition objecting to the closure of Farnham’s tip (details below), while councillors also expressed disgust at Surrey’s proposals at a meeting of Waverley’s watchdog overview and scrutiny committee on Monday.
Waverley’s head of environmental services Richard Homewood confirmed on Monday the council witnessed an upsurge in fly-tipping incidents after Surrey reduced the opening hours and ended the free daily allowance of chargeable non-household waste at Farnham’s tip last autumn.
And chief among the concerns of residents and elected representatives is further cuts could add to the spike in illegal fly-tipping.
“The potential impact of closing two sites in Waverley – Farnham and Cranleigh – is far greater than changes in opening hours,” Mr Homewood told councillors.
“People have to drive another 10 miles – and people in Farnham won’t want to drive to Waverley’s only remaining CRC in Witley. It will mean our reject rates will go through the roof and we could see a lot more fly-tipping. These proposals could have a very significant impact.”
Farnham Residents opposition councillor Jerry Hyman agreed the closure was a “big issue for Farnham and Cranleigh”, commenting Farnham residents could choose to use recycling sites across the Hampshire border, impacting on neighbouring authorities.
“We must encourage people to respond to consultation in their thousands,” he said.
Tory councillor for Hindhead Peter Isherwood queried the impact on air quality if residents are forced to drive a distance to their nearest CRC, adding: “Bordon is about to introduce a £5 charge if you don’t live in Bordon. The idea of closing the Farnham site is absolutely mad.”
But Wyatt Ramsdale, Tory borough councillor for Rowledge and county member for Farnham North, said: “Surrey County Council hasto find money from somewhere.This is a consultation. I’ve objected to the Farnham closure but we need to come up with solutions.”
He suggested using any capital generated by the sale of the Bourne Mill CRC “to find a better site” elsewhere, as well as switching from black bin bags to clear plastic ones “to make it easier to spot builders’ waste”.
Responding, Mr Homewood said he understood the financial pressures on the county council, “but savings for Surrey will increase costs for Waverley. It will save Surrey operating costs but there will be more clearing-up costs.”
Encouraging residents to respond to Surrey’s consulation, Waverley’s portfolio holder for the environment Andrew Bolton said: “We must encourage the largest possible response from councillors and residents. Surrey listens to numbers.”
According to the latest government figures, 615 fly-tipping incidents were reported to Waverley Borough Council in 2017/18 – costing taxpayers £30,000 in removal costs, a 43 per cent increase on the costs Waverley suffered in 2015/16.
In the past 12 months, Waverley has issued 36 fixed-penalty notices to people who fly-tipped.
The Herald has asked Surrey County Council how much it cost the council to operate Farnham’s CRC in 2017/18, and how much (if any) revenue the tip generated – but is yet to receive a response.
Waverley leader Julia Potts was another of those to voice “real concerns” that fly-tipping could increase as a result of cutbacks at Farnham’s recycling centre in 2017.
Responding to the latest threat to the service this week, Miss Potts said: “We have consistently raised our concerns with Surrey at officer, portfolio holder and leadership levels that by closing all but one of the community recycling centres in Waverley there will be a negative impact on residents and the environment, ie additional pollution and vehicles on the rural roads. We are hearing many concerns from our residents and will be responding in detail to the consultation.”
As well as welcoming responses to its consultation online at surreysays.co.uk, Surrey is hosting a number of drop-in sessions for residents to quiz officers in person.
No drop-in has yet been scheduled for Farnham, however, with the nearest session set to take place in the Wilfrid Noyce Community Centre, Godalming, from 10am to noon on December 12.
Surrey’s consultation runs until 11.59pm on January 4.
As well as completing Surrey’s survey online at surreysays.co.uk, Herald readers are encouraged to sign Farnham resident Yolande Hesse’s petition at tinyurl.com/ya45gj32 and express their concerns in writing to their county councillor.