News! January 2019
NEXT CRANLEIGH SOCIETY SOCIAL – 11TH FEB from 6.30, Three Horseshoes. do join in any time –
Cranleigh Parish Council – have agreed some aspects of the planning application by Cranleigh School (Private) – we thought the land opposite Nottcuts was protected by the Neighbourhood Plan? Comments Please. They are not agreeing with the housing opposite Nottcuts apparently. phew!
Surrey County Council have allowed Farnham to keep their Recycling centre (tip). Cranleigh’s Recycling centre will remain open for recycling for now – They will no longer accept ‘black bag’ waste, the waste that goes to landfill. This is how they intend to make enough savings to continue to keep Cranleigh recycling centre open. This will be monitored over the next 6 months but they were confident that enough saving could be made to keep our centre open.
Waverley and Cranleigh society – meetings to continue – what are you most concerned about at the moment?
FLOOD FORUM with Anne Milton MP – next one is soon – so please tell us if you have knowledge of sewerage coming up where it shouldn’t or flooding or other water issues.
RIVER FLY Lavae counts – we have had some training so help is always welcome. Thank you for offering, we will be in touch soon.
RIVER TIDYING – we need to find out more about this – we have been told that fallen branches etc. may be good in certain areas and NOT to remove them please.
RIVER QUALITY – our team will contact those who have shown interest soon, thank you
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.
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 email@example.com and they will get back to you.
Surrey County Councillor
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
- 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/
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
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 : firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
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 email@example.com
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.