As one of our followers said to us recently:
So tonight another planning officer bites the dust – and he’s only been in the job a month!
You probably saw Richard Fox at ‘Your Waverley’s’ last Joint Planning Committee when the poor devil was asked questions that he was simply unequipped to answer about the Hewitts development in Cranleigh. Q. Did the four storey homes have dormer windows or not? He said NO!
Suffice to say, they do, so councillors were misled, and as a consequence of an enjoyable early lunch!!! followed by a difficult interview – up goes the advert for another planning officer? And up goes the planning application again tonight – to be revisited? And… OUT GOES RICHARD! You can view it here: Thank heaven there are a few councillors left at Waverley that care about – the new town they have dubbed – ‘Poor Old Cranleigh.”
What baffles us here at the Waverley Web is? ‘YW’s” Planning officers consistently mislead councillors, or don’t answer their questions at all, which is the same thing? So why aren’t more of them going out through the big glass security doors, never to return?
And tonight?
Councillors are being asked to rubber-stamp this application for 45 one and two bedroomed flats by the railway at Wey Hill tonight.
The Developers have convinced the planners that:
“in culmination with costs to remediate the contamination from the land, the planning infrastructure contributions, abnormal costs (such as the provision of a new substation and contiguous piling and acoustic fence provision along the railway boundary) and the quality build costs, the proposal would be unable to viably support on-site affordable housing provision or a commuted sum.”
Whilst the Council has appointed independent viability consultants to analyse the developer’s figures, unfortunately, all the details are exempt and for Councillors Eyes Only!
What does it cost to cover the Councils’s infrastructure asks? A mere £200K on a £11M project.
Transport Contribution
£41,640
SPA Contribution
£40,000
Education: (Early Years)
£30,287
Education: (Primary)
£42,969
Play Areas
£25,312.50
Playing Pitches
£27,562.50
Recycling
£99.50
Total
£207,870.50
Please don’t refuse it though, say the officers, as we have already counted 39 of these dwellings in the Local Plan to provide their Five Year Supply. As the Council has that Land supply – why not refuse it until you get a better brownfield offer?
Well what a surprise -It has had been granted – But at least they will have Food Caddys – even if not proper Bins (question again not properly answered!!) Presuming the Management Company will provide them – What Management Company I hear you ask???
What a shambles – Honestly you couldn’t make it up – questions half answered (because the PO’s don’t have the bally answers)
Lack of parking – Having a father with a Disability scooter – I know how important it is to have space for them as well as somewhere to charge the damn things – We used to have to drag an extension lead into the underground parking to charge his – which caused untold issues with the Management Company (Health & safety etc…) But they refused to put electric points in even though we offered to pay for one) so we did it anyway!
As mentioned if you only provide the BARE MINIMUM ie 1 space/Flat then you are bound to get overflows not only from Visitors but from the two bed flats that possibly have two professionals that have to drive to work therefore two cars. I do understand this is a Town Centre development and they SHOULD ALL TAKE THE TRAIN – But things happen and no doubt they will which will result in overflow parking for local residents.
I understand that it is an eyesore in Haslemere and has been for 12 years – But for goodness sake make it something that will add to that pretty town – and not something that the residents will be ashamed of in future years, because WBC couldn’t get it right NOW.
I don’t want to hear any more excuses about the fact they didn’t get it right in the past and therefore they now have to suck it and see – Make a stand now – or they will be saying this for the next 10 years. But they don’t and certain councillors who will remain nameless (for now) – but I think we know who they are, keep supporting the Officers and if someone dares to gainsay or slightly misquote them – they come back and say they DO SUPPORT it – If they got any closer up the Officers Nethers – they would be quite rightly considered ventriloquists!
As for Hewitts – Officers not getting facts right on Dormers in the Roof is not considered a valid reason to refuse – Because the distance is greater than the WBC standards. Well if you live in a little Cottage (as we do) it makes a hell of a difference when you have Dormer windows in the roof at 2.5 storeys – (let alone 3) overlooking your patio, garden and bedroom. It doesn’t make any difference if it is 21 or 51mtrs – It is still overlooking. Thankfully we have got to know our neighbours… Apparently they don’t notice the nudists/orgies in our garden …(I REALLY AM JOSHING !!!) But you get my point.
You will be pleased to hear I go on my Holibobs on Thursday – so you may get a bit of peace – But don’t bank on it – I have my Laptop!
Seems the council is in favour at all times of filling spaces considered unsightly with literally anything that takes up the space. Brightwells Syndrome.
Doesn’t matter if it has no affordable, proper parking, disability access..you name it..all fine apparently. I voted against it the lack of affordable was a disgrace.
Here at the Waverley Web, we are so tired of watching councillors stick their hands up and grant consents for mediocre designs for homes made out of ticky tacky! Ask some of the new purchasers of Crest Nicholson homes who after just six months are selling up?
And… does anyone really believe there will be 29 or so new retail units at Brightwells… if so dream on because there will be another revision of the revisions and they will become … anyone’s guess. Our suggestion, bat houses for the batty Farnham councillors who, hopefully, will soon be handing in their identity tags?
The last thing we want is peace from you Denise. As usual, nail hit on the head!
Oh! What a night