Our comments & Call to ACTION

Our Comments below & Call to Action ‘CHANGES TO THE CURRENT PLANNING SYSTEM CONSULTATION ACROSS ENGLAND’ by  Central Government

read and respond here  – needs to be responded to by end of September  –  https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations

An interesting take on the document can be found here

Here is our take on the Government’s Consultation which we will respond to as a Civic Society –

  1. This document is to be viewed alongside ‘Planning for the Future’, which needs to be responded to by end of October “Planning for the Future” https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations – read and respond here 
  2. Government wants to improve the planning system but says it can’t be tweaked – needs to be a new creation. Proposals involve fundamental reforms of the planning system to improve its effectiveness; a) Changes to the Standard Method currently used for assessing local housing need; b) Securing of First Homes, sold at a discount to market price for first time buyers: c) Temporarily lifting the small sites threshold below which developers do not need to contribute to affordable housing, up to 40-50 units; d) Extending the current Permission in Principle to major development so landowners and developers now have a fast route to secure the principle of development for housing on sites; e) Including making sure Neighbourhood plans are robust, fit for purpose and respected, the government hopes; f) Overall strategy is too fast enable planning permissions that stand up and don’t have to go to appeals system; g) Numbers are key – no dodging the government’s requirements for a million dwellings during their parliament to be built out; h) The new requirement for fast tracked (30 months) Local Plan development will be the only time for the provision for local consultation and embracing – e.g. Flooding. Once agreed the LP will stand for 8 years unchanged.
  3. The new Standard Method for assessing local housing need wants to identify sufficient land for housing over at least the next 15 years so that the current under-delivery of necessary housing is remedied. A base line is to be established which is the higher of 0.5% of existing housing stock or the latest projected average annual housing growth over a 10 year period. This is then adjusted for market signals such as affordability in certain areas.

By using statistical growth it puts homes where there is current development not where they are needed. Its hypothesis is to over provide on the housing target of 300,000 per annum by giving a mandatory requirement on Local Authorities of 337,000 because ‘not all homes that are planned are built’ and ‘the new Standard Method is designed to provide enough land to account for the drop-off rate between permissions and completions’.

  1. The government’s intention is to provide a minimum of 25% of all affordable housing units secured through developer contributions as first time homes. The adjustment for affordability will never do what it intends. Why would homes be offered at a lesser margin when the build rate can be reduced and homes can be eked out to match demand at higher prices? Surely it is better for Local Authorities to insist that schemes are revised to reflect the demand for affordable houses in each relevant area rather than let developers be granted planning permission for larger dwellings that are unlikely to be built until the demand improves nationally and locally. Developers will be still able to provide contributions for off-site affordable housing but this tends to create ghettos rather than a cohesive mix of dwellings.
  2. It is proposed to introduce an exemption from the Community Infrastructure Levy for first time homes. Small and medium sized developers will be allowed to defer Community Infrastructure Levy payments to assist their cash flow.
  3. It is proposed to raise the small sites threshold to up to 40/50 new homes. There could be an adverse effect if developers attempt to bring forward larger sites in phases of up to 40/50 homes.
  4. It is proposed to grant extension of the Permission in Principle consent regime for major developments. The first stage will establish whether a site is suitable for housing and this will last for 5 years without conditions being attached to it. Unless contested under the new ‘Planning for the Future’ legislation landowners will be able to offer siters up for consideration far in excess of those currently envisaged. At present there are 1,000,000 homes in England for which planning permission has been granted but not built. This, at 300,000 per annum, is over 3 years requirement. This, along with the 187,000 per annum already in adopted local plans, would give more than 8 years supply at 300,000 per annum. The government needs to concentrate on what powers it will give Local Authorities to enforce developers to fulfil their responsibilities. Developers should be given more encouragement to use brownfield sites rather than more easily processed green field sites.
  5. In summary the following should be incorporated into the reform of the planning system.
  • Homes should be built where they are needed not determined by a ‘one size fits all’ formula.
  • Development should be led by plans set by Local Authorities together with their residents.
  • Developers should be forced to build the houses for which they have received planning permission. This is fundamental.
  • Developers’ ability to avoid obligation through viability should be removed.
  • Contributions to build all relevant infrastructure should be established at an early stage of any development. Or be made a pre-condition of approval/commencement.
  • Percentages for affordable homes should be set locally.
  • Any changes to the planning system should require primary legislation.
  • The 5 year land supply should be scrapped.

so there you have it – complicated, incomplete and above all feels rushed – what do you want us to do about this consultation?

Leader of Wokingham Borough Council had this to say in conclusion – “The “Changes to the current planning system” running alongside it has an end date is October 1. This has the meat. No debate! No appeal! It only needs ministerial approval, implementable by a simple decision on his behalf. This paper changes the standard method, allows for fifty homes to be built without affordable housing, extends the permission in principle consent regime and has first time homes discounts. It does all of these within the existing planning system.”  

Another interesting take on the future of Surrey was highlighted recently – concerning how County Level planners come together to develop strategy that affects us all….. hover over the titles to bring up the documents.

Here is another way of putting our concerns –

These proposals change the planning system to one that is led by developers as opposed to by the people through heir local council. This completely undermines localism.

Introducing a new standard methodology for calculating housing need would increase Waverley’s annual allocation for 590 dwellings to 835 dwellings. As usual London and the South East is earmarked as the most concentrated area of growth (London and the South East) however it is also one of the most constrained areas, e.g. by the Metropolitan Green Belt. This puts enormous pressure on the limited areas of countryside beyond the green belt, like Cranleigh. There is no consideration for the consequences of large numbers of houses being concentrated in these ever decreasing areas, not selected because they are sustainable locations but purely because they do not have the policy constraints of the green belt. Developers have no incentive to build excessive housing in these areas as their objective is to maintain high housing prices, they therefore trickle feed the housing which does not match the delivery numbers required by the Gov and forces more planning permissions to be granted as a 5 year housing supply becomes impossible to maintain. This proposal puts even more pressure on small market towns and villages which do not have the supporting infrastructure and effectively creates unsustainable dormitory towns with a heavy reliance on the private car.

It is also difficult to understand why Woking’s numbers will be reduced under this proposal, despite the supporting infrastructure and more urban dense residential areas, and particularly when Waverley’s allocated housing numbers were increased to meet 50% of Woking’s unmet need?

These numbers that will have to be concentrated in small areas across our borough will have a significant and negative effect on our natural environment which is already facing huge challenges with increased growth and climate change. We are already in an area of water stress and this is becoming more apparent each year when residents have repeated interruptions in water supply, necessitating the reliance on deliveries of bottled water. These proposals also do nothing to tackle the substantial numbers of planning permissions nationally and locally that have already been granted and that have not been delivered by developers. In fact the opposite is true, this proposal could facilitate even larger land banks and slower delivery manipulating the housing market for profit but not for the benefit of the wider population.

The new standard methodology does not take account for the impact on the economy and on residents from Covid-19 and it would appear that any methodology based on 2018 figures is now fundamentally flawed. In fact it would seem negligent to even propose altering the planning system under the current circumstances when the future of the economy is subject to so many variables, including a downward trend of house prices or even a collapse, which could result in policy which is not fit for purpose.

The far reaching impacts of the pandemic will begin to become clearer towards the beginning of next year, any review of the planning system should be deferred until these impacts are understood and can be taken into account. This is especially pertinent to affordability criteria which the proposals assume requires intervention by way of higher housing numbers to reduce prices. However this does not take into account the real prospect of a generally weakened economy from Covid-19 and conversely could actually contribute towards the collapse of a downward local market by this constructed intervention forcing over supply.

First Homes just looks like Starter Homes rebranded. There were no homes delivered under the Gov starter homes initiative and it was not even welcomed by the developers. This intervention by Gov in the housing market could have the effect of artificially propping up house prices. It is widely recognised that the need for low income households is for rented homes as this is the cheapest way to keep a roof over people’s heads. This proposal would undermine the delivery of more affordable rented homes and divert support away from those most in need.

Existing shared ownership schemes are more affordable than First Homes and imposing a 25% level of First Homes on development sites would also negatively impact on their delivery. Will be CIL exempt.

Increasing the small sites threshold from 10 to 40/50 dwellings would detrimentally impact the amount of affordable housing that is delivered across the borough. Particularly bearing in mind that areas like ours rely on many small sites to deliver new housing and we don’t have that many very large sites, so opportunities for affordable housing would be limited by this proposal. With this and the First Homes proposal really impacting on the amount of affordable rented homes that can be delivered.

Th proposal to remove the restriction in the current Permission in Principle regulations on major development appears in the main to be linked to the initial cost to developers only. With 9 out of 10 planning applications approved it is difficult to understand why this should be necessary. Major development has far more impact on an area and it is difficult to understand how these impacts can be suitably investigated over the required 5 week decision period. It also limits the ability of local residents to comment on major applications with major effects on an area.

Deadline 1 Oct

 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907215/200805_Changes_to_the_current_planning_system_FINAL_version.pdf

Good News & updates from us (July 2018)

Good News & updates from us (July 2018)

We thought we’d put together the following overview of what we are working on at the moment to keep you in the loop. Please feel free to comment or let us know if you have any questions and we’ll try to get back to you as soon as possible.

HOUSING

Due to the Government’s need to build more houses in the South East, the lack of a Green Belt around Cranleigh, the position we were in having no “Local Plan” (WBC now have one, but it’s subject to Judicial Review) and our Borough Councillors being outnumbered on the Joint Planning Committee (JPC) of Waverley Borough Council (WBC); numerous large planning applications have been successful,  resulting in around 1,700 additional homes being built.

Cranleigh Civic Society has scrutinised the major planning applications and brought pressure to bear on the planning authority – WBC – bringing attention to poor design and deficiencies details and suggesting alterations to improve them.

CCS ensures Councillors of all areas understand the problems, including information that the Professional Planning Officers should provide.

CCS has put up spirited opposition to many of the planning applications, often promoting a more thorough debate and consideration of detail with some successful results.

What now?  We must keep a watch on the conditions imposed by WBC and ensure they are implemented correctly. Ideally we must try to ensure no more planning permissions are granted until the housing that is in the pipeline is up, the effects are understood and supporting infrastructure is in place.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Drinking water supply and sewage treatment and removal.
CCS has put pressure on Thames Water (TW) to replace old drinking water pipes – being 50 to 70 years old and made of asbestos cement, some “blue” and very dangerous if released into the water supply and ingested.

As pipes burst TW put a programme in place to replace sections – so some success. WBC and TW have had to admit that they do not have asbestos liability insurance so they would have to pay claims themselves – very expensive to the public purse.
Thames Water has upgraded Cranleigh Sewage Treatment Works (STW) to accommodate the current housing demand and will, by law, have to do so again to meet the sewage emanating from the huge new housing developments.

Cranleigh Waters is a designated river which takes the outflow from STW . CCS has worked hard to show that this river is inadequate, and has caused depletion in fish numbers  and must be re-considered.  Some CCS members have undertaken river searches / water quality measuring and officially reported to and interacted with the authorities.
Ditches are being monitored thanks to CCS and Surrey Wildlife Trust is to undertake remedial work and bring life back to the river and local streams.

The Environment Agency (EA) had left Cranleigh off its watch list of threatened environments, so CCS and others worked to get Cranleigh back onto the maps and monitored regularly. The EA now works with CCS to monitor the area and make more relevant recommendations to our planning authority.

Flooding and flood plains.
CCS has worked tirelessly with the planning authority WBC, EA, and TW to point out, measure and photograph full information about flooding.  The EA now records and reports flood levels, thanks to CCS. Surrey County Council (SCC) is tasked with cleaning out drains and ditches especially when heavy rains are forecast.

Anne Milton MP.
CCS has been in disucssions with Anne all along and she has started a Flood Forum in Cranleigh where many officers and local reprentatives work to improve knowledge, understanding, and even to alter laws and planning conditions.  She has been able to get the attention of the movers and shakers at SCC.

Roads, Pavements, Footpaths.
CCS is in constant touch with SCC regarding potholes, flooding and traffic jams, and improvements are scheduled.  A hard and lit footpath / cycleway from Cranleigh to Guildford is being looked at.
WBC’s New Local Plan shows minimal road and junction improvements at the moment, despite the new Local Plan approving 2,600 homes plus a school at Dunsfold, producing more traffic for the A281,

CCS continues to read and react to all such documents hoping to influence the authorities from our local knowledge point of view

Railways
Surrey County Council and national government say new railways are not going ahead at the moment but that there must always be a footpath and bridle way available along the old railway line.
Buses . SCC is responsible and we know of no changes at the moment.

Schools and GP surgeries 
SCC must, by law, provide enough school places and doctors when the population rises.

Police & Fire Service 
SCC must, by law, provide adequate cover.

COUNTRYSIDE
Our wildlife and waterways experts have helped WBC to improve ponds and waterways. CCS congratulates Cranleigh Parish Council (CPC) for its work on creating Fields in Trust including: The Beryl Harvey field which has been saved and improved and the Centenary garden marking 100 years since the end of the first World War, which is under construction thanks to our Parish Council.

PEOPLE
WBC’s interim Chief Executive and Head of Paid Services, Tom Horwood, has listened and responded to CCS’s complaints about the way officers and councillors have made us feel and he will attend  a meeting next month with CCS and Councillor Julia Potts, the Leader of Waverley Council  to hear more about why the residents  of Cranleigh and surrounding area are so disillusioned with so many of their actions.

CCS will put forward very constructive suggestions to support our local knowledge and expertise hoping to work more effectively together in the future.

Liz Townsend was the inspirational first chair of CCS until she was voted onto CPC, then Waverley Borough Council and she is doing a great job.

Steve Jeacock  was a member of CCS committee and was also voted onto CPC and has worked hard to represent all our views.

Adrian Clarke is our key attribute regarding drinking water pipes and the risks posed by their age and the blue asbestos fibres they contain.

We welcome your input!

Set up in 2014 by volunteers for the Neighbourhood Plan, the committee of CCS has worked hard and morphed into a quietly professional group of careful researchers and communicators to help keep Cranleigh special – speaking up for all.

The committee of eight needs help and support please.
WEB SITE, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, MEMBERSHIP, NEWSLETTERS are all proving a great success and we welcome input for the web site including valued photos and stories. We also welcome help with these applications.

Becoming a member and supporter helps to tell the Councils what the public really know and want and feel.

USEFUL LINKS

 

Neighbourhood Plan dates – Next week!

Neighbourhood Plan dates – Next week!

Can you attend any of the dates next week?

There are three Neighbourhood Plan Exhibitions planned taking place in the Village Hall, on the following dates:

  • Thursday 12 July 9am – 4pm
  • Friday 13 July 4pm – 8pm
  • Saturday 14 July 9am – 12.30pm
These plans affect how our Parish will be developed until 2032.

Click here for more details.

If members can attend on one of these dates and/or encourage your friends and neighbours to do the same we can help ensure Cranleigh has a say on these plans.

News from Waverley…

Also, if you haven’t so already perhaps you’d like to subscribe to the Waverley e-newsletter to keep up to date on all plans effecting the area. You can do so here: www.waverley.gov.uk/newsletter

 

 

 

 

Your Response to the Waverley Local Plan?

Your Response to the Waverley Local Plan?

Response to Waverley Council on their Public Consultation on the Waverley Local Plan (Part 2).

Deadline is 9th July.

The draft Local Plan, Part 2 considers:-

– Sites for Additional Housing in Cranleigh
- Proposed sites for Travellers in Cranleigh

– The Settlement Boundary for Cranleigh
- Housing Standards for New Housing

The objective of the consultation exercise is to clarify whether we as a village are in agreement with the proposed Policies.

It is important to consider the accuracy of the Council’s ‘statements of fact’, whether we object to the proposed policies or other proposals and if so, why.

Accordingly, whether you were able to attend either of  the exhibitions at the Arts Centre (31st May & 25th June) CCS invite you to let us know if you have any:

a. queries
b. concerns
c. comments or
d. objections to the proposals outlined in the Local Plan, Part 2 consultations.

CCS are compiling a list of comments and objections, which has to be lodged with the Council by Monday, 9th July.
We are happy to consider any points you would like to raise and to include them (if appropriate) in our representation to the Council.

Any objections should be supported with evidence, demonstrating how/why the Council’s proposed policies are inaccurate/incomplete/ill thought through.

Please email us before the deadline to be included.

Thank you

Dunsfold Planning Application Approved – What now?

Dunsfold Planning Application Approved – What now?

Dunsfold Planning Application Approved – What now?

On the 29 March, the plan to build 1,800 homes in Dunsfold park was approved by the Secretary of State Sajid Javid despite heavy opposition from residents.

It’s time to put pressure on regarding the effects on infrastructure.

Get Surrey has reported that Councillors have expressed fear on Increased traffic and congestion in the area once the homes are built and included a map to show likely problem areas following the development.

Specifically mentioned is more traffic expected on an already busy A281, but other areas for concern include:

•    The partly single-track route from Dunsfold Park via Markwick Lane, Salt Lane and Station Road to the nearest railway station at Milford – this is also the quickest route to the A3;
•    The use of B2130 through Hascombe to Godalming, and onto Guildford; and
•    The roads through Hambledon towards Witley Station.

However, the increase of traffic on country lanes was assessed and deemed sustainable by transport planners.

Jim McAllister, Dunsfold Park Ltd’s chief executive said:

“The development of Dunsfold Aerodrome will provide homes for all sections of the community including young families currently priced out of the area, create new jobs and deliver a range of new community facilities together with infrastructure improvements. We look forward to working with Waverley Borough Council to progress the detail.”

What can be done now?

The pressure on infrastructure is the main concern affecting residents when any new housing development is approved.

If these developments effect you and your family, you can still make an impact. Cranleigh Society welcomes new members to help spread awareness and ensure our voices are heard. For further information email: membership@cranleighsociety.org

Further reading:

Join Cranleigh Civic Society

Get Surrey – The reaction after 1800 homes approved

Waverley’s Local Plan Part 1 Adopted

Waverley’s Local Plan Part 1 Adopted

20 Feb 2018  Waverley’s Local Plan Part 1 adopted

was adopted tonight:

  • For – 41
  • Against – 1
  • Abstained – 3

Even those who opposed or had serious reservations took the view that the Waverley area would have more protection with a LP. Even with it’s flaws,  WBC would be able to take back control.  No longer would planning be developer led.

All three Cranleigh Councillors expressed their deep concerns about Waverley’s Local Plan. But they decided to vote For IT because the consequences of having no LP would be disastrous. Nothing will undo the damage that has already been inflicted on Cranleigh but further damage can be minimised with the LP.

http://www.waverley.gov.uk/news/article/337/waverley_s_local_plan_is_adopted

Waverley’s local plan part 1 – Cranleigh Society’s opinion was shared before the vote –

Whilst Cranleigh is viewed by Waverley as one of the four main “settlements”, it has some serious infrastructure problems which the Inspector, Jonathan Bore, has not addressed in the report, even though they were pointed out to him by Cranleigh Civic Society and others at the Inquiry.

  • Cranleigh is only served by already congested B-roads, and lanes (we call them “rat runs”) which do not even qualify for B-road status, and there are no plans in his report (or in the Local Plan) to solve this.
  • Any new dwellings being built in Cranleigh rely on sewage treatment at the Elmbridge Road works.  In recent years, the so-called river that the effluent is pumped into, Cranleigh Waters, has developed serious flow problems, sometimes ceasing flowing altogether.  The river has become polluted, with local angling societies reporting dying fish stocks to the Environment Agency, and there is currently no plan by Waverley to solve this problem.  The Inspector has not considered this in his report.
  • 29.6% of all Cranleigh’s drinking water supply network is made from old asbestos cement pipes which are at the end of their 50 to 70 year design life, and they are regularly bursting releasing free asbestos fibres into the water supply.  Some of the pipes recently tested by Thames Water are made from highly dangerous blue asbestos.  Waverley are aware of this problem, and it has been suggested to them that all the old asbestos cement pipes be replaced before any new housing is connected to the network. Again, this important matter has not been considered by the Inspector in his report.
  • There are no plans to create new local jobs, so increasing the population will simply create a need to commute to work, which is hardly sustainable.

We accept that there is a need to build new houses in SE England and we do not have a problem with Cranleigh taking its fair share, but unless the infrastructure problems are addressed before the plan is published and put into place, we see big problems ahead.

Modern town planning (actually even Ebenezer Howard said this in the 1920s) states that “houses should be built where the jobs are”.  Modern thinking is to build settlements as close as possible to places where people can work or to at least give people easy access to commute.  Of the four settlements in the report, Cranleigh is least able to meet this criteria.  It has only B-roads and narrow lanes leading out of it, no railway station and so on.  The obvious place to build substantial quantities of new houses, in the Waverley area, is Milford, as:

(1) It has a mainline railway station that can easily be extended to take the new 12 car trains to London; (2)  It is close to both the A31 and A3; (3) It is close to the job markets in Guildford, Godalming and Farnham; (4) It is adjacent to the River Wey and therefore readily lends itself to the building of a new major sewage treatment works that can meet the needs of the latest 2017 implementations of the Water Framework Directive.  Yet I think we are correct in saying that the Local Plan only envisages 180 new dwellings in Milford?  If this is the situation we have to ask “Why?”

Richard Bryant

 Vice Chair.

 CRANLEIGH CIVIC SOCIETY.

Go to Waverley Borough Council  website and complete the consultation if you feel you can.

Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies