Councillors get a chance to spend Government grants

Waverley Borough Council allocates £1.4 Million in grants for Local Projects

Praise for Councillor Liz Townsend for her part in securing this.

‘Councillor Liz Townsend BEM, Waverley Borough Council’s Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development, said: “Working with our local economic advisory forum, we have put careful consideration into the distribution of these grants to provide funding for projects that will have a significant impact where it’s needed most in Waverley.” She added: “These funds will go towards key projects in disadvantaged areas across the borough and will provide vital facilities for those communities. As a council, we are committed to creating sustainable, healthy and inclusive communities and we believe that these projects are a step towards achieving these goals.”’

Read the full WBC update here

 

Get involved to plan Waverley’s cycle tracks, walkways and mobility access routes upgrades

GET INVOLVED

Surrey County Council is preparing to develop a Local Cycle and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) for Waverley Borough.  This plan would allow Surrey to bid to the Department for Transport for Active Travel Funding  to create and improve the infrastructure for cycling, walking and mobility access across our borough.   The Plan would also be used by Waverley Borough Council when assessing planning applications.

Before Surrey commissions the development of this Local Cycle and Walking Infrastructure Plan, they are  reaching out to local communities to tap into the local knowledge and expertise of organisations like the Cranleigh Civic Society.

What is your opinion? How strongly do you feel?  Waverley Officers really need help with their work to put the case for Waverley, and therefore Cranleigh.

Cranleigh Chamber of Commerce propose that the Downs Link should be made up to a standard that makes it safe for wheelchairs as well as making it more likely that cyclists will use it instead of their cars.

The Downs Link – the old railway line – is an adopted right of way for pedestrians, cyclists and horses.  Surrey County Council have previously stated that there aren’t enough people who would want to commute from Cranleigh to Guildford to warrant paying for the railway to come back, and even if that changes, the right of way must be maintained for pedestrians, cyclists and horses.

We look forward to hearing from you – comment below, email in reply, or  write to Cranleigh

Waverley are still working on Local Plan Part 2! have your say if you like…

Waverley BC sent this message around about Local Plan part 2. Part 1 was agreed in 2018 and is about strategic policies and sites (where buildings are hoped to go) 

REMINDER: PRE-SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN PART 2 CONSULTATION CLOSING FRIDAY 29 JANUARY 2021

Thank you if you have already responded to the above consultation. If you have not, I am writing to remind you that the consultation will be closing at 11.59pm on Friday 29 January 2021.

Where can I view the documents?

The Waverley Borough Council Pre-Submission Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocation and Development Management Policies and other supporting documents are available at: www.waverley.gov.uk/LPP2.

Due to the national lockdown we are currently unable to make hard copies of documents available for viewing at the Council Offices or any other locations. However, other suitable arrangements will be made for those who are not able to view the documents electronically. Anyone wishing to make such arrangements, please contact us on 01483 523291 as soon as possible to ensure that we can help you well in advance of the deadline for the consultation

How can I make representations?

If you prefer to write or email, please reference your correspondence with the relevant paragraph or policy number. Please note that representations will be publicly available and cannot be treated as confidential, although address, telephone and email details will not be published.

Please see our privacy notice for further details: www.waverley.gov.uk/PlanningPolicyPN. If you need a hard copy of the privacy notice, please contact us on 01483 523291.

Representations may be accompanied by a request to be notified at a specified address of any of the following:

i) The Local Plan Part 2 has been submitted for independent examination;

ii) The publication of the Inspector’s report; and

iii) The adoption of the Local Plan Part 2.

For more information or assistance on this consultation please contact the Planning Policy Team on 01483 523291 or email planningpolicy@waverley.gov.uk.

Supporting documents

Evidence documents

All other relevant documents can be found on our evidence studies and supporting documents page.

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

CofE primary school, Surrey’s business case versus what people want

CofE primary school, Surrey’s business case versus what people want

Cranleigh CofE Primary School 

The news plans WOULD fit onto the current site – but at what cost?

In their presentation recently Surrey County Council (SCC ) showed a strong business case for selling the 2 sites of the school and building a new combined school and nursery on a playing field.  Cranleigh Society has great concerns about this plan.

SCC explained that their professionals compared the costs of the new build, including the sale of the land for housing, with refurbishing the current school, and bringing a new build onto the Junior site for the infants and nursery.  The cost was shown as almost double the plans and no income stream.  So we do understand!

BUT

Cranleigh Society has been shown the way that the new, eco-friendly, expanded school plans would fit well onto the current Cranleigh CofE school site.

This desktop exercise was carried out by a retired architect with plenty of experience of working with councils on schools. Living in Cranleigh and walking around all the sites he knows what he is looking at first hand.

It shows that a new build on the existing site would achieve the following –

maintain and improve access to the school and nursery.

Incorporate all the features of the new build eco-friendly plans – Infants, Juniors, extra classes, nursery and SEND unit, and a pond.

It suggests using the playing fields as playing fields rather than building on both sites. Any improvements to the fields’ drainage necessary should be done.

Financially it would require funds that we are very aware SCC has not allocated for education in Cranleigh.  Is this really acceptable?

Having declared a climate emergency SCC should not be allowing green fields and trees to be destroyed as a matter of overarching policy – same for all building projects going forwards.

We know too that the new housing on the 2 school sites is in Waverley’s Local Plan and therefore has to be in Cranleigh’s Neighbourhood plan – this does not make it right.

Access to the new build on the playing fields would be difficult for all, cycles, scooters, cars and pedestrians, and the site is out of sight, tucked away from view, and would be a haven for unwanted behaviour around its perimeter.  See our picture…

In addition the increased people, cars and therefore pollution caused by building on both sites is unwanted by Cranleigh people.

Rowland Road and Parsonage Road are narrow, and the path from the corner where they join and bend around, and where all school traffic and pedestrians would have to go is more narrow and cannot be widened.

PLEASE COMMENT BELOW as we depend on your feedback – we are representing you as best we can.

We want a fair and speedy result here – and so does the school and nursery.

thank you

 

 

Cranleigh needs you now – more housing planned – we MUST act today

Cranleigh is under severe threat from our own County Council. It seems this is news to many local residents. If you know please pass it on before it is too late. Surrey CC are trying to bulldoze their plans while we are unable to demonstrate our feelings.

To those of you who have done something – many thanks – but far too many people in our community are still unaware of the plans to devastate Cranleigh with 90 homes right in the centre of our village, on the land occupied by Cranleigh C of E school opposite Glebelands. The new school building is planned to be so inaccessible that parents and children face a long arduous walk behind housing with no nearby parking in all weathers. In fact the current lay-by parking will be severely affected because that is where the new housing is planned.

They should have completed an Environmental Impact Assessment. They have not. We believe your help is needed to ‘encourage’ them to do so NOW.

Surrey County Council have neglected Cranleigh C of E school building for 18 years. The roof leaks – children have been sitting in class with rain water collecting next to them for far too long. Rather than repair properly, Surrey CC have decided to build a new school on green field land that is known to flood. The new building is claimed to be a Beacon. Take a look at the plans here   It is an EYESORE. It has no natural space but an artificial surface. The classrooms are smaller than the current ones and the main hall is so small that assembly will have to be in two parts. Also lunch will be over at least 2 if not 3 sittings. The whole effect is cheap and nasty and Surrey want to sell the current land for housing to make a profit we believe.

Once again Cranleigh will suffer. So please email or write to Tim Oliver, the Surrey County Council Leader, our MP Angela Richardson, our County Councillor, Andrew Povey and our Borough and Parish Councillors, Liz Townsend and Paul Follows.

This needs to be Now. Please pass this on. Liz Townsend <liz.townsend@waverley.gov.uk>; Andrew Povey CLR <andrew.f.povey@surreycc.gov.uk>; Cllr Angela Richardson <angela.richardson@cranleigh-pc.gov.uk>; Tim Oliver <tim.oliver@surreycc.gov.uk