A public meeting has decided Unanimously …
A passionate and determined crowd turned out in force to hear Cranleigh Civic Society (CCS) spell out the reasons WHY it had called a public meeting. . . to tell more than 500 people how their borough council and their elected councillors were representing them!
However, despite invitations – only three councillors turned up!
Mary Foryszewski (Con); Patricia Ellis (Con West) .. of the – ‘we do no hold secret meetings, they are just meetings not open to the public’) and Liz Townsend (Con West).
It was No show from the Stennett duo – Stuart and Jeanette! (Con East) No surprise there then?
(CCS) Chairman Phil Price said the Society was working tirelessly to protect Cranleigh, and despite repeated attempts to persuade WBC to listen to residents’ concerns it had failed..
He said the Society’s remit was to protect Cranleigh and despite its repeated attempts to persuade WBC to “listen to a host of residents’ genuine concerns” it had failed..
‘Well, that is until to-day, when we received a telephone call inviting us to meet with them!
Waverley Councils’ message to us was … “We want you to know.. We really do care’ – which brought howls of derision.
He outlined the concerns that had brought so many people to the meeting:
- 1,300 houses already granted planning permission – was just the tip of the iceberg.
- The lack of infrastructure including – sewage treatment; the flood risk; asbestos in 70-year-old water pipes. – Is it white or is it blue?
- Polluted waterways.
- Traffic congestion.
- Water pressure.
- 40% of the borough’s housing was on its way to Cranleigh!
After ( CCS) members gave detailed explanations of the problems Cranleigh faced now, and in the future – due to s(WBC’s)determination to create Cranleigh New Town. They urged the public to sign the Asbestos Petition, (open until Sunday evening) to be sent to MP Anne Milton calling for the water supply to be tested.
“As the Surrey County Councillor is here this evening perhaps he could explain how highway authority will deal with the extra traffic?
Questions from the floor came thick and fast : The Answers – not so fast!
- Why was Cranleigh under-represented on the Joint Planning Committee?
- Why was it being ‘dumped’ on?
- Why was it being asked to accept the lions share of development almost half the borough’s quota?
- How many brown envelopes were being handed over by Developers to gain permission?
- Why couldn’t take Farnham’s example and leave the borough of Waverley?
- Could it hold a Referendum to leave.
- Why – are so many homes required – and who dictates the housing need?
- Why wasn’t a Local Plan in place years ago?
- Why were developers financial contributions under (106 agreements) so low.
- Were Cranleigh borough councillors satisfied with the authorities handling of the housing situation?
- Why is over £177,000 being provided by Berkeley Homes towards a sports pitch for Cranleigh Public School?
Villager Eddie White Summed up the Answers to most questions:
“We are in the mess we are in here in Cranleigh because Waverley Borough Council has repeatedly failed to produce a Local Plan – No Plan – No protection.”
After two hours – The Cranleigh Civic Society proposed a Vote of No Confidence in THE EXECUTIVE of Waverley Borough Council. TWO COUNCILLORS LEFT THE ROOM – ONE REMAINED (MARY FORYSZEWSKI. who voted against) The decision by the people of Cranleigh was Unanimous.
Read more in a post to follow: