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.

%d bloggers like this: