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

KPI and A2 Dominion Granted Permission

KPI and A2 Dominion Granted Permission

The nightmare has come true!  Yet another 265 houses on green fields were voted in last night on the casting vote of the Waverley Joint Planning Committee’s Chairman Cllr Peter Isherwood.

So now Cranleigh has a deluge of 1,236 new houses (and that doesn’t include the infilling going on all around Cranleigh in back gardens everywhere, especially up the Horsham Road) of these houses 418 are meant to be affordable – whatever that really means.

We just want to put the enormity of the scale of this development into context, the Swallowhurst Estate was for 58 houses only!

This is now the masterplan (so far) for Cranleigh, showing the Berkeley’s, Little Meadow and now KPI sites (A2 Dominion) together:

Masterplan for Cranleigh

The countryside to the left of the high street has now all but disappeared:

Cranleigh aerial photo

Cllr Mary Foryszewski was the only Cranleigh Councillor who could vote at last night’s meeting, as once again Cllrs Stewart and Jeanette Stennett declared a pecuniary interest in the KPI development, and Cllr Patricia Ellis was nowhere in sight.  Cllr Foryszewski alone battled valiantly for Cranleigh, but all was in vain.  Be very scared Cranleigh residents, Waverley has big plans for Cranleigh and they are not pretty.

It was also revealed last night that Waverley agreed a reduction in affordable housing on the KPI site in return for more money for the Elmbridge Road bridge (we can’t wait to see what actually happens there, as the estimated cost by Waverley is more akin to a fairy tale) and a sizeable contribution to a new Leisure Centre, proposed for the parish owned Snoxhall Fields, no doubt surrounded by a big car park.  Never mind, Cranleigh doesn’t need free recreation space, not when it can have even more houses who will pay council tax to Waverley!  However, it transpired that the Parish Council were not even given the courtesy of a consultation about this new Leisure Centre, the Cllrs we spoke to knew nothing about it, and are desperately trying to save this area for the community, by putting the land into a Trust, rather than see it consumed by Waverley.

Cllr Liz Townsend, who it seems has not been allowed to take up Cllr Brian Ellis’s vacant place on the planning committee, was allowed a speaking slot and conveyed how angry Cranleigh residents felt about the destruction of our village.  She also pointed out how seriously under represented Cranleigh is on the planning committee and that our voices were not being heard.

Officers brushed Cllr Townsend’s concerns about flooding on the site under the carpet, as well as the carefully worded advice from the Environment Agency to Waverley about something called the Sequential Test, which basically seems to mean that areas at less risk of flooding in Cranleigh should be built on first.  However, officers forged ahead regardless, avoiding carefully answering the question of whether the sequential test had actually been passed.  One shocked Cranleigh resident said “it’s as if the officers work for the developers”.

Cllr Townsend spoke from the heart, highlighting the unsustainable location of Cranleigh, and the harm that this deluge of development, in such as short space of time, would have on the character of Cranleigh and on its residents.  However, other hearts and minds appeared firmly closed, particularly Cllr Brian Adams (yes, he’s the one who said if we accepted the Crest Nicholson site for 149 houses Cranleigh would’ve taken its share of the borough’s housing, strangely the webcast of that meeting disappeared) who called his fellow councillors perverse if they refused this application, even though they had refused the identical application only last year.

Richard Bryant, on behalf of Cranleigh Civic Society, reminded Waverley that they have a legal duty to maintain water quality in our rivers and not to increase pollution levels in accordance with the Water Framework Directive.  Unfortunately, this was not even acknowledged, Waverley’s eye was firmly on the prize of 265 dwellings that won’t have to go anywhere near their precious green belt.  Houses that are far from major roads, far from a train station, far from jobs, and far from where most Waverley Councillors live.

Concerns about the sewage treatment works were cast aside with ease and pollution of Cranleigh Waters was not really worthy of a mention from officers, other than to imply that all was fine and dandy.  Apparently, the sewage from an additional 3,000 residents makes no difference.  And don’t forget that’s just Cranleigh’s new residents, we have other surrounding villages sending their muck here too to process.  Oh, and did we forget to say, no one gives a damn about the environment, it’s an inconvenient tick box in a developer-led planning system.

Cranleigh Cllr Brian Freeston admitted “we don’t feel part of Waverley at all, can you blame us?” he spoke about the unfair allocation of houses on a blighted Cranleigh. The fact that we are being forced to take 30% (so far), in the village alone, other areas have a maximum of 15%, and that doesn’t even take the Dunsfold settlement into account. Cllr Freeston voiced concerns about the viability of the parkland, and said Cranleigh was in an untenable position.  Serious and informed comments about the ageing asbestos cement drinking water pipes, of which Cranleigh unenviably has almost 30%, compared to 2% in the entire Thames Water area, received about as much attention as a Cranleigh Councillor at a Local Plan meeting.

As Cllr Townsend said “there is not a big enough material constraint, not even banned blue asbestos, that trumps more housing on Cranleigh’s green fields”.

So there you have it folks, Cranleigh is being officially destroyed with impunity by Waverley, next it will be a massive big shopping centre, just like Waverley have planned for Farnham, and one day you will wake up and find yourselves living in the biggest town in Waverley, and wonder how the hell you got there.

Death of the Grampian Condition

Death of the Grampian Condition

It won’t have gone unnoticed to residents that both Crest Nicholson on the Horsham Road and Cala Homes on Amlets Lane have started developing their sites.

Both these sites had Grampian style conditions.  This was meant to prevent the start of the development until off-site works were completed on the sewerage network, including the sewage treatment works on Elmbridge Road. However, we were recently advised by planning enforcement at Waverley that the Grampian Condition wording is too woolly to enforce and doesn’t specifically mention the words sewage “TREATMENT”,  so no work to the sewage works are apparently included – another nail in the coffin for Cranleigh.

To say that we felt let down by the lack of rigour exercised in the planners’ wording of the Grampian and the lack of ability by Waverley to enforce it, is an understatement!

There is no consideration being given to existing residents, who after all fund the borough council, in the scramble to achieve a housing number at all costs.  We don’t need to remind you, that you will have to bear the brunt of polluted rivers, congested roads, odour nuisance from the sewage works, an over burdened GP surgery, the list goes on.


As you might remember Cala Homes had applied for their Grampian condition to be removed, however, Waverley Borough Council, in a rare moment of what seemed common sense, refused their request. Surprisingly, this did not stop work on Cala’s show houses.

Amlets 8 Jan 2017

The bungalow on the Horsham Road, which was acquired by Crest Nicholson to provide an access road to the site, was demolished long before their Grampian Condition was even discharged (such as it was), and work was also immediately commenced on the green fields to build 149 houses.  Grampian, what Grampian?

It was also pointed out that Crest’s Grampian was a little more lax than that for Cala Homes, despite all the initial concerns Thames Water had about this site and the need for huge on-site sewage storage tanks. These worries seem to have been a mere flash in the pan!

Not long after the first Crest spade was in the ground, they were plotting to build 121 more houses in the pristine green fields adjacent to this site.

Crest describes Cranleigh on their website:

“Cranleigh is a pretty Surrey village where one can enjoy a relaxed pace of life yet benefit from daily conveniences aplenty on the doorstep, including a selection of shops, cafes and restaurants.”

Crest Nicholson demolish Bungalow Horsham Road

Sounds idyllic, and surprising how keen developers are to emphasise that we are a “village” in their marketing literature.


Despite the unsustainable location of Cranleigh, on a rural road network, with little public transport, a heavy reliance on the use of the private car, limited employment opportunities, water quality issues, a high percentage of asbestos cement drinking water pipes, an inadequate sewage treatment plant, and on green fields to boot,  none of this matters, as long as the houses are built.

The ONLY reason for these dwellings is because we have NO GREEN BELT protection, nothing else, and national planning policy will be twisted at the whim of the planners to suit their ultimate plan for this area, which is CRANLEIGH TOWN.

However, before you start thinking, how bad can that be, it will be bad!  We are the only community in Waverley without green belt protection AND any environmental designation.  Farnham at least has the protection of Thames Basin Special Protection Area.  So going forward, Cranleigh will be the dumping ground for any, and all, unmet housing in Waverley.  However, Waverley Borough Council seem to be the winners, they have a convenient area, in the corner of the borough, which will be a cash cow for council tax, and with only 5 councillors (Farnham has 18) representing this area, and two of those with a declared pecuniary interest in development, this really does seem like a marvellous arrangement.

There is the rather inconvenient truth of Cranleigh Waters, which is polluted and failing in terms of the Water Framework Directive, but that can be smoothed over, by applying pressure to an overworked and under resourced Environment Agency (EA) with the promise of funds for river restoration  and flood plain replacement projects.

There’s the problem of the rural roads and A281, but as Matthew Evans, Ex-Waverley Head Planner, said it really doesn’t matter if people are stuck in traffic.  Obviously air quality issues and quality of life, for residents in this part of the borough,  was not something that disturbed his sleep.

And then there’s the ageing asbestos cement drinking water pipes, which have an extremely inconvenient habit of bursting whenever water pressure increases, still, studies of health risks are inconclusive, so it appears Waverley don’t need to worry about that either.  Despite the fact that we can find no reports that include the age of pipes we have here, or our particularly agressive type of water.

It would be difficult to imagine what would ever be considered as a material constraint by Waverley planners against development in Cranleigh, perhaps the discovery of uranium in the high street?

And to add insult to injury, the EA are now actively looking for replacement flood plain for this area, as let’s face it, they don’t want to create too much flooding downstream for Bramley and Guildford, residents there might start to wonder why the hell all this building was allowed, or should we say encouraged, on the natural flood plain we DID have.

However, we still have something up our sleeve and that’s you!

Joined together, you are the most powerful force.  Stronger than Waverley and stronger than developers.

Working together in big enough numbers, people can, and will, make a difference.  We can fight for fairness, we can fight for our community, and we can fight for our environment.

JOIN US


“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Margaret Mead


 

Stonescapes Appeal Update

Stonescapes Appeal Update

We have received an update from residents regarding the green belt Stonescapes site on Guildford Road, appeal decision:

“Stonescapes/Tunnel Grab Ltd – Successful opposition to appeal re Operating Centre for up to 10 HGV’s on Guildford Road, Cranleigh

The Decision of the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) on an appeal by Tunnel Grab Ltd in relation to land at Stonescapes/Yew Tree Nurseries, Guildford Road, Cranleigh against the decision of the Traffic Commissioner following a Public Inquiry on 7th April 2016,  has just been confirmed.

Local residents, Surrey County Council and Waverley Brough Council (the representors) opposed the appeal and were successful. Accordingly, the appeal did not succeed and the decision of the Traffic Commissioner dated 23rd May 2016 following the Public Inquiry (to refuse the appellant’s application to add a new Operating Centre at Stonescapes/Yew Tree Nurseries for up to 10 HGV’s) stands.

In November 2016, the Upper Tribunal heard arguments from the appellant’s legal representative, local residents and Counsel representing Surrey County Council. The Upper Tribunal’s decision outlines the relevant legal framework, the background to the matter, the Public Inquiry and relevant extracts from the Traffic Commissioner’s original decision. It goes on to consider the various arguments raised by the appellant and on behalf of the representors. The Upper Tribunal concluded that it saw nothing ‘in the grounds of appeal to persuade it to overturn the Commissioner’s decision‘.

It went on to say ‘The basic findings of fact can not be said to be plainly wrong on the evidence before the Commissioner, the law did not require the Commissioner to come to a different conclusion and there is no material error of law in the decision. What is really being challenged is the Commissioner’s judgement and there is no basis for us to interfere with it’.

A full copy of the decision is available if anyone would like to see it – please email and we will try to arrange it.

Tunnel Grab Ltd has a month in which to appeal, if it so chooses to do, but the grounds for any such appeal are extremely limited so hopefully this will be an end to the matter.

It took a lot of work but the successful outcome has made it all worthwhile!”

Resident’s View – Is the Green Belt Killing Cranleigh?

Resident’s View – Is the Green Belt Killing Cranleigh?

I keep hearing that the  reason we have so much development being approved in and around Cranleigh is because we have no Green Belt protection.

I had thought that the green belt was there to protect exceptional countryside, however recently I discovered that it’s a planning policy to prevent urban sprawl and can end up protecting countryside of quite low environmental value.

Green Belt policy was established in 1955 primarily to stop urban sprawl. There are now 14 separate areas of Green Belt that cover 13% of England; mostly open land and countryside around the largest or most historic towns and cities.” – Taken from CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) website.

When I take my daily walk on the Surrey Hills I can’t help but feel that the stunning landscape around Cranleigh deserves equal protection, and that the countryside beyond the green belt is under huge threat like never before. Because of green belt planning policy, development is being pushed further out into open countryside and on to valuable farmland, with little or no infrastructure, and far from employment opportunities.

I am quite aware that there are pros and cons to the argument for a green belt review in Waverley, however I think that this difficult and emotive topic needs to be fully addressed immediately by an official forum made up of elected representatives and members of lobby groups, residents groups etc, before Waverley’s local plan dumps half of the borough’s housing allocation in an unsustainable location in and around Cranleigh, which makes no planning sense to me at all.

Save Our Green Belt!

Save Our Green Belt!

It is with a heavy heart that we post today, as if 45% of the borough’s total housing supply wasn’t enough to dump on Cranleigh, now it appears our own Waverley Borough Councillors Stewart and Jeanette Stennett directors of the company Stennetts Ltd are attempting to build a mixed-use development on our green belt.

 

Gaston gate Elevation proposed flats

site plan Gaston Gate Stennetts Ltd

If agreed, this sets a dangerous precedent for Cranleigh and opens Waverley up to countless appeals should they refuse other green belt development in the future.

The green belt is heavily protected by Waverley’s own planning policies as well as by national planning policies and it is only in “special circumstances” that development is granted. We believe that there are NO “special circumstances” here. The application refers to a loss of employment, however this is a residential dwelling adjacent to “Stennetts Yard” it does not have commercial usage.

We sincerely hope that members of the Eastern Planning Committee will consider the contents of our letter sent today to them.

Click on the following link to view the contents of the letter: Gaston Gate Green Belt Planning Application

Although we are unable to persuade Waverley to grant us a public speaking slot for this evening’s planning meeting, as the minimum 5 objections had not been received by the closing date for comments (although objections are now growing), we still plan to attend the meeting this evening (13 July).

YOU CAN STILL OBJECT TO THIS PLANNING APPLICATION.

The meeting  starts at 5pm at Waverley Borough Council Offices, The Burys, Godalming GU7 1HR.

PLEASE JOIN US AT WAVERLEY TONIGHT

Cranleigh’s green belt is under threat, if this application is approved this evening it WILL result in further applications and permanent damage to the very little environmental protection from green belt that Cranleigh has.