Cranleigh “Rivers”

Share Button


Cranleigh Rivers – Are you interested in country walks, finding water courses with a friend and seeing what you can find in the bottom of the water? Then please contact us and offer your help. thank you.

Cranleigh Waters is not a river or a stream. It is a network of brooks and rivulets which merge and then drain into the River Wey at Shalford.

Most of us will cross over one or more of the many tributaries of Cranleigh Waters on our way to school or village,  and will probably have noticed that the flow can be either a trickle or turgid surge – in other words ‘flashy’

Like most watercourses, pollution from agriculture and human activities can have a devastating effect on plants and animals which live within. The big question is whether we want Cranleigh Waters to be a flourishing habitat for wildlife or just a drain.

The Environment Agency , Surrey Wildlife Trust and others have granted monies to improve our waters this year but we need your help – whether measuring river “flies” (tiny lavae – great indicators of overall water quality) or building small structures to improve flow or just general tidying up.

Fish only thrive when the water is at good quality, providing an excellent habitat for the tiny creatures the fish eat. These tend to be water shrimps and the lavae of May flies etc.


Share Button

County Needs You!

Share Button

Subject: Surrey Waste Local Plan: Publication of Submission Plan for representations

Visit www.surreycc.gov.uk/newwasteplan and complete the questionnaire. Views need to be submitted by 24 February 2019.

Last month, Surrey County Council’s Cabinet approved Surrey’s new Waste Local Plan for publication. We are required to produce the plan which contains planning policies and potential sites for new facilities to manage the county’s waste.

Before it can be adopted by the county council, it now has to be submitted to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and examined in public by an independent planning inspector.

Residents and businesses together with all other stakeholders, including districts and boroughs, now have a final opportunity to comment on our Submission Plan, and have their views considered by the inspector. To do this they can visit www.surreycc.gov.uk/newwasteplan and complete the questionnaire. Views need to be submitted by 24 February 2019.

We are running a communications campaign on digital channels to reach residents and encourage them to share their views on the proposed plan. Please do encourage residents, businesses and stakeholders to feed in their views.

We are encouraging representations to be made online where at all possible. Nevertheless there is the opportunity to submit representations by email or in writing. Hard copies of documents will be available at district and borough offices and by calling 03456 009 009 or texting 07860 053 456.

For more information, please visit the Minerals and Waste Planning Policy webpage for the new waste plan: www.surreycc.gov.uk/newwasteplan. Or if you wish to contact an officer in the Minerals & Waste Policy Team please email wasteplan@surreycc.gov.uk and they will get back to you.

Surrey County Councillor
Email: mike.goodman@surreycc.gov.uk

Share Button

Trees & Waverley’s planning enforcement rules……

Share Button

The Council has received a number of requests for Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) in the countryside adjoining Cranleigh, due to the current pressure for housing delivery that may potentially endanger old trees and their wildlife. The council says it is therefore taking an equitable approach to such requests. The Council are liaising with larger scale developers and land owners to work towards providing sustainably planned development.  

It is not in the developers’ best interests to undertake pre-emptive felling as this will not expedite planning permission. Those at Waverley do not believe this is a practice associated with potential development sites of the size referred to that have been put forward for consideration. n.b. equitable means fair in law.

Waverley’s website about planning enforcement says:-

“What does not constitute a breach in planning?? ………

The following examples do not breach planning control:

  • vehicles parked on the road or on grass verges (unless this is associated with the unauthorised use of a property) 
  • running a small business from home 
  • clearing land of undergrowth, bushes or trees (not covered by a Tree Preservation Order)….”

However the removal of a hedgerow can be an offence under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 (unless formal notification etc) but according to Waverley clearance of undergrowth, bushes or trees will not be (unless covered by a TPO) !

The concern about protection of trees, hedgerows and wildlife is not ours alone. Many local residents are greatly concerned. Unless protections are put in place, it takes only minutes to fell a tree (or indeed the trunk of a dead tree which is providing habitats for many species of wildlife and roosting places for birds) or to disturb hedgerows, even if the developers say they are working towards ‘sustainably planned development’. Replacement of old and ancient large trees with small saplings means the wildlife has no where to go whilst the trees are growing.

It has already been pointed out what the terrible results at Little Meadow -down Alfold Road near The One Stop have been. Magnificent large trees were felled and hedgerows ripped out to simply be replaced with ugly and non wildlife friendly boarded fences!!! They maybe easy to maintain but we believe they should NOT be allowed. The previously cited the offence under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 is in place but

a. we gather that it is not an offence if appropriate notification is given – how do local residents know what is happening in this regard before it happens??? and 

b. how would we know if the developers merely say they are clearing undergrowth, bushes or trees (unless covered by a TPO)

When chain saws start it is too late for us to do anything about it!!!

We need to protect existing trees and hedgerows!!! – please help us to pursuade Waverley planners to reconsider its position re imposition of TPO’s on the numerous trees which should be protected now that the planning application has indeed been made – WA/2018/2074- Cranleigh School’s application opposite Notcutts

” Land Centred Coordinates 504755 139827 East Side, Guildford Road, Surrey- Erection of 40 dwellings (including 14 affordable dwellings) with new vehicular accesses and associated works”

YOU CAN add your thoughts on Waverley’s website http://planning360.waverley.gov.uk/planning/

Share Button

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL WANTS YOUR COMMENTS ON THEIR PROPOSED WASTE POLICY

Share Button

SURREY  COUNTY COUNCIL WANTS YOUR COMMENTS ON THEIR PROPOSED WASTE POLICY

They are proposing to close the Cranleigh Recycling Plant 

– Do you want to drive to Witley with YOUR Rubbish ?

The Council has already carried out one Consultation on their Recycling Centres Plan (Rubbish Tips) and in all 3 Alternatives they proposed to close the Cranleigh Centre.

That Consultation finished on January 4, 2019. However they held a Cabinet Meeting on December 18, 2018 to finalise their proposed Waste Plans,

so they obviously did not take into account some of your comments on closing our tip.

It is important that you now send your comments on the proposed Surrey Waste Plans.

So please look at their Plan on : www.surreycc.gov.uk/newwasteplan

The deadline for sending your comments is February 24, 2019.

Please send your comments by email to : wasteplan@surreycc.gov.uk

or by post to : Waste Planning Policy, Room 385, County Hall, Kingston. KT1 2DW.

PLEASE make your points on how our Waste Policy should be protected, in this time of massive Council cuts.

Share Button

Cranleigh School Planning applications

Share Button

WA/2018/2074 Cranleigh School Application for 74 Houses

That’s 40 houses on the fields opposite Notcutts Garden Centre on Guildford Road plus many in their grounds. 

ACTION – ANY comments local residents may have must be submitted to WBC by 1st February.(this date was extended by WBC from 11th January due to a delay in putting up the notices, and is now in line with the ‘comment by’ dates for all the linked applications made by the school – see below).

You can use WBC’s planning portal (under the  relevant application number) or, if you have problems with this as some of our other local residents have had, you can email your comments directly to WBC on consultation.planning@waverley.gov.uk

WBC have also confirmed that all 5 of the applications will nevertheless have different decision dates as the different types of application have different time lengths for determination. Also sometimes an applicant and the case officer can agree a time extension

Application ref WA/2018/2074 (40 houses on fields) has a decision date of  4/3/19.

Application ref WA/2018/2137 (athletics track + sports pavilion on the Lowers, including all weather football pitch within the athletics track) decision date of 22/3/19

Application ref WA/2018/2138 (10 staff houses) has a decision date of  20/3/19

Application ref WA/2018/2139 (Listed Building application) has a decision date of 13/2/19

Application ref WA/2018/2158 (for 24 staff houses/new access to Horseshoe Lane) has a decision date of 14/3/19

N.B. Regardless of the ‘comment by’ deadline date of 1st February, WBC have confirmed that comments can still be accepted right up to the date of the decision, although to give WBC time to thoroughly consider them the earlier comments are made the better.

ACTION – and we hope to see you socially at the Three Horseshoes pub on the second Mondays in each month –  February  11th and so on.

Representatives attended the Parish Council’s Planning Committee meeting on Monday 7th January.

A number of issues were raised including:-

* maintaining the separation of Cranleigh from Rowly

* outside settlement boundary

* the impact on landscape outside Green Belt, which the Inspector said could be dealt with via ‘normal channels’ (?)

* WBC themselves had wanted it to be Green Belt

* no ‘need’ for it as regards to the number of dwellings Cranleigh must agree to

* Ruffold Farm application (almost opposite) for 22 houses has been turned down

* Structural reasons are important such that if this application were approved, it would undermine these i.e.

– we have already gone through the Local Plan Part 1. This included a complete assessment of strategic sites and fully addressed the                       short term needs.

– Local Plan part II is still being considered

As such the total number of houses will be about 74, not just 40, so it will be a considerable development in addition to the 1,700 houses already approved for Cranleigh and 2,600 for Dunsfold which will hugely impact on Cranleigh’s already overstretched infrastructure.

The lack of notices to neighbours, on entrances/exits and vague location references in the Surrey Advertiser notice were also commented upon. A local resident also noted that his application for planning permission to build only 3 houses on a field very near by had been turned down by WBC about 5-6 years ago as WBC wanted to maintain separation between Cranleigh and Rowly. He was also told that an added entrance/exit onto Guilford Road was dangerous.

The Parish Council Planning Committee OBJECTED to the application on the structural ground and the other detailed points.

Can Cranleigh resist more housing planning applications?

Please note – not all the housing allocated to Cranleigh is in the pipeline – so WBC are still hoping to fulfill 1700.

CRANLEIGH SCHOOL (private)  planning application reference =  is our much loved, local, prestigious school which is also a substantial local employer, has indicated that in a bid to remain competitive they need to develop a new all weather sports facility on The Lowers (i.e. the fields behind the Common and near to land near Glebelands school) but to do so they say that they need to raise funds by developing the fields opposite Notcutts. 40 houses are suggested for sale on the open market (14 of which are to be ‘affordable’) with approx 34  more houses within their grounds for staff.  They say that the new sports facilities will be available to hire by the community and that this fulfils their charitable requirements.

But is the loss of fields, the impact on the settlement boundaries between Cranleigh and Rowly and on the environment and the additional impact on Cranleigh’s infrastructure a price worth paying?

RUFFOLD FARM – fields for housing? 22 houses have been applied for.

At least Cranleigh Parish councillors managed to preserve some small corners of our little world – the Beryl Harvey field – and the centenary garden – DO visit.  Also Snoxhall fields are now held in trust for Cranleigh so more difficult to develop – well done CPC.

btw – reading the agendas and minutes published on all three councils’ web sites is very interesting and informative.

Share Button

Date change! More housing planning applications!

Share Button

WA/2018/2074 Cranleigh School Application for 74 Houses

That’s 40 houses on the fields opposite Notcutts Garden Centre on Guildford Road plus many in their grounds. 

ACTION – ANY comments local residents may have must be submitted to WBC by 1st February.(this date was extended by WBC from 11th January due to a delay in putting up the notices, and is now in line with the ‘comment by’ dates for all the linked applications made by the school – see below).

You can use WBC’s planning portal (under the  relevant application number) or, if you have problems with this as some of our other local residents have had, you can email your comments directly to WBC on consultation.planning@waverley.gov.uk

WBC have also confirmed that all 5 of the applications will nevertheless have different decision dates as the different types of application have different time lengths for determination. Also sometimes an applicant and the case officer can agree a time extension

Application ref WA/2018/2074 (40 houses on fields) has a decision date of  4/3/19.

Application ref WA/2018/2137 (athletics track + sports pavilion on the Lowers, including all weather football pitch within the athletics track) decision date of 22/3/19

Application ref WA/2018/2138 (10 staff houses) has a decision date of  20/3/19

Application ref WA/2018/2139 (Listed Building application) has a decision date of 13/2/19

Application ref WA/2018/2158 (for 24 staff houses/new access to Horseshoe Lane) has a decision date of 14/3/19

N.B. Regardless of the ‘comment by’ deadline date of 1st February, WBC have confirmed that comments can still be accepted right up to the date of the decision, although to give WBC time to thoroughly consider them the earlier comments are made the better.

ACTION – and we hope to see you socially at the Three Horseshoes pub on the second Mondays in each month –  February  11th and so on.

Representatives attended the Parish Council’s Planning Committee meeting on Monday 7th January.

A number of issues were raised including:-

* maintaining the separation of Cranleigh from Rowly

* outside settlement boundary

* the impact on landscape outside Green Belt, which the Inspector said could be dealt with via ‘normal channels’ (?)

* WBC themselves had wanted it to be Green Belt

* no ‘need’ for it as regards to the number of dwellings Cranleigh must agree to

* Ruffold Farm application (almost opposite) for 22 houses has been turned down

* Structural reasons are important such that if this application were approved, it would undermine these i.e.

– we have already gone through the Local Plan Part 1. This included a complete assessment of strategic sites and fully addressed the                       short term needs.

– Local Plan part II is still being considered

As such the total number of houses will be about 74, not just 40, so it will be a considerable development in addition to the 1,700 houses already approved for Cranleigh and 2,600 for Dunsfold which will hugely impact on Cranleigh’s already overstretched infrastructure.

The lack of notices to neighbours, on entrances/exits and vague location references in the Surrey Advertiser notice were also commented upon. A local resident also noted that his application for planning permission to build only 3 houses on a field very near by had been turned down by WBC about 5-6 years ago as WBC wanted to maintain separation between Cranleigh and Rowly. He was also told that an added entrance/exit onto Guilford Road was dangerous.

The Parish Council Planning Committee OBJECTED to the application on the structural ground and the other detailed points.

Can Cranleigh resist more housing planning applications?

Please note – not all the housing allocated to Cranleigh is in the pipeline – so WBC are still hoping to fulfill 1700.

CRANLEIGH SCHOOL (private)  planning application reference =  is our much loved, local, prestigious school which is also a substantial local employer, has indicated that in a bid to remain competitive they need to develop a new all weather sports facility on The Lowers (i.e. the fields behind the Common and near to land near Glebelands school) but to do so they say that they need to raise funds by developing the fields opposite Notcutts. 40 houses are suggested for sale on the open market (14 of which are to be ‘affordable’) with approx 34  more houses within their grounds for staff.  They say that the new sports facilities will be available to hire by the community and that this fulfils their charitable requirements.

But is the loss of fields, the impact on the settlement boundaries between Cranleigh and Rowly and on the environment and the additional impact on Cranleigh’s infrastructure a price worth paying?

RUFFOLD FARM – fields for housing? 22 houses have been applied for.

At least Cranleigh Parish councillors managed to preserve some small corners of our little world – the Beryl Harvey field – and the centenary garden – DO visit.  Also Snoxhall fields are now held in trust for Cranleigh so more difficult to develop – well done CPC.

btw – reading the agendas and minutes published on all three councils’ web sites is very interesting and informative.

Share Button

2019 News Update

Share Button

MEETINGS WITH WAVERLEY – Cranleigh Civic Society has been instrumental in arranging regular meetings with management representatives of Waverley Borough Council, including its Chief Executive Tom Horwood, Leader and Deputy Leader Cllr. Julia Potts and Cllr. Ged Hall, Head of Planning Elizabeth Sims and others. We have discussed our numerous concerns about Cranleigh especially in light of the vast amount of additional housing coming our way and have endeavoured to ensure that the Council improves its lines of communication with our residents. We are also liaising closely with Societies and associations from other settlements within Waverley and are happy to pursue any community related queries or issues with the Council at these regular meetings, if you email any queries you would like us to raise. Karen

DRINKING WATER PIPES – In January 2017, Cranleigh Civic Society asked Waverley Borough Council to assess the risk to our health of our many old, blue asbestos drinking water pipes in Cranleigh, but so far Waverley has decided it cannot do this as there is as yet no evidence to support them spending time and money on the issue. Meanwhile they need to get all the new housing estates into Cranleigh completed and occupied first.
Cranleigh Civic Society is continuing to press Waverley Borough Council for action, and we have written to the Government’s Drinking Water Inspectorate for clarification.

ENVIRONMENT – of particular concern is to increase awareness and protection for our environment which is under threat due to over development.  

CENTENARY GARDEN – protected green space – Cranleigh now has a beautiful new centenary garden and a good deal of work is being done on Beryl Harvey Fields, our conservation site.

FLOOD RISKS – As regards building on land that has in the past regularly and seriously flooded, the worst location is the field opposite the sewage treatment works where we fought long and hard for planning to be refused. So we have brought this particular site to the attention of leading Home Insurers and it appears that they have logged this as a site to treat with caution. Furthermore, we have arranged for, and will accompany, Anne Milton MP on a visit the Association of British Insurers in January 2019 to discuss not only this site but the fact that this building on flood plains is happening countrywide.

PLANNING It has been another busy year for your Society in reviewing all aspects of Planning :

The Waverley Local Plan Part 1 laid down that Cranleigh MUST build 1,700 houses by 2032. BUT we have already received over 1,700 dwellings’ Planning Applications – and most of these have been approved and it looks like most will be built and occupied

So how can we fight off any more Applications in the next 14 years?

The Plan was delayed by being taken to the High Court for Judicial Review – mostly over the planned 1,800 houses for Dunsfold.

This delayed the whole planning policy, and meant that some developers had only to pay Section 106 – rather than the heavier
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  

Your Society responded in detail to the draft Waverley Local Plan Part 2 – and also to the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan produced by our Parish Council.

This was a good review of all aspects of our Village development and named a large number of Green Sites to be protected.

It reviewed what other sites might be protected from development.

Waverley Council introduced the rules for levying the Community Infrastructure Levies on Developers.

Our biggest battle was over the 55 houses proposed by Thakeham Homes now being built! We attended the Planning Meeting in Godalming,
and produced photographs showing that the site has flooded over several years. But the Planning Department and the Committee brushed aside our evidence, maintaining they had designed in enough drainage !

We were concerned that the Joint Planning Committee had 23 Councillors – and it was obvious that most had not visited the site and did not know much about it.

We contested the housing development on Hewitts where 3 storey houses looked down into private back gardens, but accepted the requested number of houses.

CRANLEIGH VILLAGE HOSPITAL TRUST AND HC-ONE – We held a special meeting to have a presentation by one of the Trustees of Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust (CVHT) about the new planning application for developing  their site – it is now to be a private Care Home with 20 Community Beds contracted out to our local Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Surrey County Council (SCC). There will also be a block of bedsits only for staff who work in medical situations, owned and run by CVHT.

We also attended the Parish Council review of the Application. On balance we agreed to support the plan in view of its benefit to our Community, but there was heavy discussion on the funding story and the truth of it all.

We opposed the housing development at Ruffold Farm as being outside the Village boundary.

CRANLEIGH SCHOOL – PRIVATE – have recently held a consultation as they wish to develop the site with dwellings for staff, plus an all weather pitch. To do so they wish to build houses opposite Notcutts. We object to the 40 houses on top of the Application for 34 houses dotted around the school site.

We are very concerned at setting the precedent of allowing development along the Guildford Road which would mean merging Cranleigh with Rowley.

LEISURE CENTRE – Waverley Council has set aside some £12 Million from developers to upgrade our Leisure Centre, and this has caused healthy debate.

We are against building a completely new Centre on, say, Snoxhall Fields, which must be protected, and are advocating that there is enough land for the existing Centre to be expanded with improved facilities, changing rooms and a new Sports Hall. Being next to the Village way car park is a major benefit.

ROADS – Our severe concern at the pressure on our Infrastructure has a major focus on our totally inadequate roads – especially the A281 into Guildford.

So we had a good meeting with 4 Highway Engineers from Surrey County Council to review all their plans. We were especially disappointed that they stated that they had no funds for improving the A281 apart from smoothing the traffic from Dunsfold onto that road.

CAR PARKING – ? GOING UP? In our meeting with Cllr. Julia Potts, the Leader of Waverley Council, we expressed serious concern at the future lack of shopping parking – with the extra 1,700 homes – let alone the 2,600 houses at Dunsfold which will surely come to Cranleigh for shopping, She said that they were reviewing this problem and were considering a multi-storey car park in Village Way – are YOU in favour of this ? and what other concerns do you have for our Community’s future ??

We reviewed all their other projects – and highlighted the growing traffic jams on the High Street.

SUCCESSES? The bottom line is that for years Cranleigh Civic Society and our councillors have worked hard to try and stop Waverley pushing ahead with getting so many houses built in Cranleigh and on green fields, as an easy way of meeting their allocated housing numbers – however we are sorry to say that the deluge continues.

Do you think Cranleigh Civic Society should only be concentrating on developing ways to fight legally? 

CRANLEIGH RIVERS – a few of Cranleigh Society members are very keen to help Surrey Wildlife Trust find out about our “rivers” and their water quality.  So we have started river dipping monthly to find and count wildlife – tiny! – and report to SWT for their records.  If the waters deteriorate they will take action or if they improve we will able to celebrate.

MEMBERSHIP – perhaps because CCS hasn’t stopped the housing numbers our membership has not increased lately.  BUT we believe keeping our councillors and officers informed of things we all know has helped and can continue to help.  In addition we are asked by them to share information – a two way street.  Please keep the faith and join in.


KEEPING CRANLEIGH CARING – We meet at the Three Horseshoes pub from 6.30 – every month – on the second Monday in each month – come along anytime and join in. 

Relocation of Cranleigh Primary School
Important Planning Application Notification Relocation of Cranleigh Primary School Application ref: WA/2018/2044 planning
360.waverley.gov.uk   As you may know, SCC Property has applied to Surrey County Council for planning permission to relocate Cranleigh
Primary school to behind the houses on the Common.   It will provide places for 540 primary school pupils and 68 nursery children.  
There is no parking provision for parents near the new school and the
closest pedestrian access route from the High Street will be across the
Common and up the footpath opposite the Curry inn. This could lead to
illegal parking and traffic chaos along the High Street and on the
Common at drop off time. The
Cranleigh Parish Council has put in an objection to the relocation of the
school, feeling that the present location behind the Post Office is more
accessible, but it will be the Surrey County Council Planning
Development Team who will make the final decision on the application.    If they do not receive enough letters of opposition it may be passed without having to go to the Planning and Regulatory Committee.  
If you wish to comment on this proposal, please do so by
14th January 2019.   Please note this is an amended proposal so
any comments made previously need to be resubmitted.  
Please write, quoting the reference number SCC Ref 2018/0138 to:
Caroline Smith (case officer) MWCD@surreycc.gov.uk  
Online comments planning360.waverley.gov.uk  
Copies to: Andrew Povey (surrey county councillor)
andrew.f.povey@surreycc.gov.uk  
Anne Milton (MP) anne.milton.mp@parliament.uk  

Share Button