It’s official according to Thames Water and Surrey County Council’s experts there’s no smell from the Cranleigh Sewage Treatment Works, and the area doesn’t flood!
Got it – No smell, no floodwater!
OH! AND LORD NELSON WILL SHORTLY GET HIS EYE BACK!!
Regardless of what the locals say, including Cranleigh Parish Council, The Civic Society and Elmbridge residents the planning numpties at’ Your Waverley’ will tomorrow {Thursday} stick two fingers up to the residents whose homes suffer from the stink from the sewage works, and the scourge of annual flooding.
So sod the poor devils that live alongside the Cranleigh Waters’ and Wey and Arun Canal, adjacent to the one way bridge – who have only recently re-occupied their homes since the 2014/15 floods… because what do they know anyway!
Certainly not more than the well-informed planning team led by Liz the Biz, and Peter Cleveland, who no doubt will have left Waverley Towers, long before the next rains hit Cranleigh.
Why wouldn’t you build… 54 dwellings along with associated works, to include formation of an access onto Elmbridge Road?
And why wouldn’t you acknowledge that a ‘desk study’ of the site by developers and county council flooding experts, is far preferable to listening to the views of the people who have lived there, for as long as 50 years, and have the wellington boots to prove it.
Can you remember the days when the comments of parish councils and residents of this borough counted for something?
This is a greenfield site which is subject to regular flooding. the flood risk has been significantly underestimated and the up-to-date allowances for flooding and climate change (Feb 2016) have not been used. Cranleigh’s sewage infrastructure is inadequate to deal with this development alongside the impact of the various other, already agreed, developments in Cranleigh. This development would have an unacceptable impact on the quality of Cranleigh Waters and does not conform the Water Framework Directive.
This site is located some distance from the village centre with poor public transport. This mean all residents will be heavily reliant upon private cause for their journeys. this is not sustainable development.
Page 11 of 61
Representations
48 letters were received following the original consultations in 2016 raising the following objections:
- Adverse impacts on highway safety
- Increased flooding
- Does not reflect the needs of Cranleigh given the high number of other applications which have been consented
- Adverse impacts on ecology
- Sewerage plant can not cope with extra demand
- Proposed number of houses is more than currently in the road
- Impact on doctor’s surgery
- Loss of farmed agricultural land
- More urban sprawl than Cranleigh can cope with
- The traffic flow model does not take into account the increased volumeof traffic from the already approved sites
- Developers were refused permission 33 years ago
- Thames Water is increasing capacity at the sewerage works by 30%without planning permission
- Support of Dunsfold development as an alternative
- Affordable housing will be unaffordable
- Loss of vital flood plain
- Adverse impacts on water quality
- Inadequate gas, electricity and water supplies
- Harm to the character, beauty and openness of the countryside
- Up to date allowances for flooding and climate change have not beenused
- The site is not deliverable in 5 years
- The Council has a current 5 year land supply
- Adverse conditions in terms of odour
- Trucks using the road shake foundations of properties along ElmbridgeRoad
- No landscaping
- Loss of trees
- Flood event in December 2013 was greater than the 1 in 100 year floodplus allowance for climate change.
- SuDS on the western edge of the site would be overwhelmed
- Proposal would fail the sequential test
- Site is not deliverable as works are required to Cranleigh SewerageTreatment Works
- Impact on schoolsFollowing receipt of additional information, an additional 8 objections received on the revised information (consultation beginning August 2017) raising the following objections:
- Site floods
- No sewerage system
- Traffic concerns
- SuDs will fail (Sustainable Urban Drainage)
- Site would fail the sequential test
- The flood mapping for the area does not take into account climatechange
- Flooding events have occurred on or near the site on the 24th ofDecember 2013 and January 2015
- Development would increase flooding off site
- Significant sewerage issues will arise
- Cranleigh Waters is failing to meet the Water Framework Directive
- Site is not deliverable in 5 years
- Poor public transportDetermining Issues
The objections just keep rolling in and So, we ask, can you see any possible reason why Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee should refuse this planning application? No, of course not, why on earth would it?
Forget the welcome hampers dished out by most developers Thakeham Homes have come up with the novel idea of giving ever buyers a pair of Hunters.
Dear Waverley Web,
The two main problems with this site are flood risk and odour risk, and you have done a good job pointing this out. Please also note:
The flood risk is a little more acute than perhaps you realise. Since moving here in 1896, I’ve seen this field flooded a few times. Since 2013 when the cottage just across the road got badly flooded and the occupants had to vacate for almost a year, in late 2015 the developer KPI illegally dredged the stretch of Cranleigh Waters along their proposed site in an attempt to move the flood risk from their site downstream (to this proposed Thakeham Homes field). The Environment Agency has told Cranleigh Civic Society that if an application from KPI to dredge the river had been applied for, it would not have been granted. We told the Head of Planning at Waverley Borough Council about this at a meeting on 02-Mar-16, but she ignored it.
Also, the odour risk is a greater problem than most people realise. Thames Water had an odour assessment done by Ove Arup and Partners in January this year. The report states that their modelling shows the majority of the site to be within the 1.5 to 3 ouE/m3 98th percentile, and in their conclusions they state “The results indicate that odour may be a constraint to residential development on the proposed site, with up to 95% of the proposed site predicted to fall within the 3 ouE/m3 contour.” Cranleigh Civic Society pointed this out to Waverley BC and they ignored it.
Kind regards,
Adrian Clarke
Cranleigh Civic Society