Our favourite planning officer – Betty Boot; Aka Liz the Biz; Lily (couldobetta) Head of Planning Elizabeth Simms… said
Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa –
to councillors and the applicants (Miller Homes) for not supplying them with accurate information a week ago.
“this is an unusual inaccuracy, the information given to you is usually accurate in all respects.”
The issue arose due to questions posed by Cranleigh Councillor Liz Townsend on whether there were dormer windows on the back of properties causing overlooking at the proposed 120 home development at the former Hewitt’s Industrial Estate in Cranleigh? A planning officer assured her there were not!
Hence the reason why the application was once again before them for determination!
This particular scheme for a three, maybe the four-storey block in Elm Bridge was dubbed by Councillor Kevin Deanus as –
“the worst designed buildings I have ever seen – and if it were in my Alfold area I wouldn’t want it to be part of my legacy.”
Now there’s some strong talk from a member of Waverley’s powerhouse – THE EXECUTIVE!
But we must not digress from BBoots apology for not getting it right on the night – (by the way, the officer responsible for making the mistake has been sacked after a month in the job! Wonder why there aren’t more?
She then went on to say:
That, although an important piece of information was incorrect, the privacy of the cottages (Vine Cottages) wouldn’t be harmed by the buildings proposed as they were further away than the minimum distance normally allowed. Officers not getting facts right on dormers in the roof was not considered a valid reason to refuse – because the distance is greater than the WBC standards.
Well if you live in a little Cottage it makes a hell of a difference when you have Dormer windows in the roof at 2.5 storeys – (let alone 3/4) overlooking your patio, garden and bedroom. It doesn’t make any difference if it is 21 or 51mtrs – It is still overlooking!
But suffice to say, despite the further protestations by Councillor Townsend, Gerry Hyman, Councillor Paul Follows; John Ward and the outburst by Kevin Deanus and others, when the dreaded word APPEAL was mentioned they were given the evil eye told – they couldn’t speak again. Down came the guillotine and the 4 min rule!
But Bramley’s By-Pass Byham had all the answers – as he usually does!! “People aren’t going to stand on chairs to look into adjoining gardens? saying; “I”m quite happy to support this application.” No doubt in return for a By-Pass in Bramley and a recreation centre?
Cranleigh Parish Council specifically asked for bat boxes to be provided on the development – here at the WW, we can think of a few people who could occupy them! But no doubt Cranleigh’s bats will go the same as our Brightwells bats here in Farnham? To the big bat house in the sky?
aven there are a few councillors left at Waverley that care about – the new town they have dubbed – ‘Poor Old Cranleigh.”
2 thoughts on “The Hewitts’ development in Cranleigh is granted … again … after Waverley’s head planning honcho offers a grovelling apology… with a caveat!”
Thank you Mr Clarke for highlighting the problems that Waverley Planners appear to ignore. “When the last bird exists in the sky and the last fish in the rivers and the sea, men may realise you cannot eat money”
We find it difficult to understand why so many homes have been concentrated in one area in the West of Cranleigh – an area that floods and has several one-way bridges, has a sewage works in its midst. We believe the Alfold Road has no bus service and few services close-by? We regularly hear from residents who are unable to get a GP appointment. Is Cranleigh growing too fast?