Our apologies if you have already received this post today -but a gremlin found its way into the WW works this morning!
With all this doom and Gloom and the Corona Virus hovering, every now and then the Waverley Web likes to inject a little humour into our posts to brighten up our day!
Would you Adam and Eve it? The developers of the former Wyevale Garden Centre in Alfold are OBJECTING, yes seriously folks, OBJECTING – to another developer’s application to build on a field a hop, skip and jump away.
Developments (Alfold Garden Centre) are OBJECTING to the ICENI Application on the other side of the Petrol Station WA/2020/0260
Why wouldn’t they? Houses are not exactly flying off the Housing-market at the moment (see Sweeters Copse/Cranleigh etc… ) and with their own development’s views being ruined by the Proposed development next door. –Who on earth would want to buy a property that has 86 New homes on their doorstep and looking into their gardens – Just off the busy A281. Especially the more expensive ones that will border the Wildlife Corridor that will abut the New Development.
But we are sure the village will be thrilled to know that ICENI will be expected to pay 80K x 4 towards a new Demand Responsive Bus service until the Dunsfold Park Development kicks in with their proposed new bus service and they have to sort the pavement out towards the Crossways. –Shame about the Crossways though – During one recent week alone, according to “Angry of Alfold’ three cars have driven into the ‘No ENTRY’ lane. No doubt Dunsfold Park will not be in a hurry as film crews are crawling all over the place filming blockbuster – Jurassic Park. No doubt there is more money to be had from dinosaurs than new homes?
Why are Alfold and the eastern villages losing their green fields? Because the Government Inspector argued that schemes already consented, and referred to the e.g. Knowle Park’s Initiative in Cranleigh on the West Cranleigh Nurseries site which has not been built out. In fact, the Reserved Matters application is still languishing somewhere? Despite developers saying at the time: “We want to build homes for village people.”
MP Angela Richardson recently told ‘Bob the Builder’ Jenrick – Secretary of State for Housing and Communities that she wanted consented applications built out by developers. If not thy should either be “incentivised or penalised for not doing so.”
With all this doom and Gloom and the Corona Virus hovering, every now and then the Waverley Web likes to inject a little humour into our posts to brighten up our day!
Would you Adam and Eve it? The developers of the former Wyevale Garden Centre in Alfold are OBJECTING, yes seriously folks, OBJECTING – to another developer’s application to build on a field a hop, skip and jump away.
Developments (Alfold Garden Centre) are OBJECTING to the ICENI Application on the other side of the Petrol Station WA/2020/0260
Why wouldn’t they? Houses are not exactly flying off the Housing-market at the moment (see Sweeters Copse/Cranleigh etc… ) and with their own development’s views being ruined by the Proposed development next door. –Who on earth would want to buy a property that has 86 New homes on their doorstep and looking into their gardens – Just off the busy A281. Especially the more expensive ones that will border the Wildlife Corridor that will abut the New Development.
But we are sure the village will be thrilled to know that ICENI will be expected to pay 80K x 4 towards a new Demand Responsive Bus service until the Dunsfold Park Development kicks in with their proposed new bus service and they have to sort the pavement out towards the Crossways. –Shame about the Crossways though – During one recent week alone, according to “Angry of Alfold’ three cars have driven into the ‘No ENTRY’ lane. No doubt Dunsfold Park will not be in a hurry as film crews are crawling all over the place filming blockbuster – Jurassic Park. No doubt there is more money to be had from dinosaurs than new homes?
Why are Alfold and the eastern villages losing their green fields? Because the Government Inspector argued that schemes already consented, and referred to the e.g. Knowle Park’s Initiative in Cranleigh on the West Cranleigh Nurseries site which has not been built out. In fact, the Reserved Matters application is still languishing somewhere? Despite developers saying at the time: “We want to build homes for village people.”
MP Angela Richardson recently told ‘Bob the Builder’ Jenrick – Secretary of State for Housing and Communities that she wanted consented applications built out by developers. If not thy should either be “incentivised or penalised for not doing so.”
Latest update: The borough of Waverley is now on Amber Alert due to an increase in COVID-19 cases in all the major settlements. Residents are now encouraged not to mix households and take the advice set out below very seriously.
Waverley’s Roulette Wheel as it battles the COVID pandemic. Will residents heed the warnings and ensure it spins in our favour?
Good morning.
Many of you might be reading the COVID-19 daily data (nationally) with some alarm over the weekend with the numbers moving from around 6,000 daily last week to approximately 12,000 on Saturday and then about 22,000 on Sunday.
The reasons for this seems to be two-fold.
Yes, cases are certainly going up around the country (and some of that appears to be both because of more testing and more localised testing in high-risk areas of the country).
The other reason does now appear to be some issues with the proper recording of the data over the last week by the government, classed as an IT issue.
The article below gives some of the context and context is critical – but clearly, the rates are going up.
As Deputy Leader of Waverley, I get a local update for Surrey and Waverley most days and the full executive gets updated every Tuesday afternoon in full. Local ward councillors for any areas of concern also get updated immediately for any issues in their patch.
We are doing fantastically as a borough, but we need to keep going and continue what we are doing.
We must continue to be vigilant and not be complacent. That includes keeping up the excellent mask /social distancing discipline but also helping our local businesses and more vulnerable residents through this.
The “R number” for the South East is: 1.1 – 1.4 at October 5 (up from 1.0 – 1.3 on September 28).
Infection rate statistics now include the test results from testing centres such as that at Onslow Park & Ride, mobile testing centres and home testing.
The table only shows confirmed cases, there will be other unconfirmed and undetected cases.
‘Your Waverley has had some good news stories to report on the number of affordable homes either built and occupied or now under construction in the borough.
Despite the Coronacoaster, the council has been on during the pandemic, the borough’s housing team has kept calm and carried on.
Housing officer Annalisa Howson told the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee (O&S) that her team had worked swiftly, and adapted to a rapidly changing COVID-world. She reeled off a whole string of initiatives to help the ‘family of council tenants.’ Waverley’s older people had been contacted, community meals delivered, Helplines set up and minimal complaints dealt with immediately.
“Someone even contacted me to see if I was alright and I’m a councillor, which made me very proud of our organisation” said Jacqui Keen.
Ms Howson, said despite some delays in building work – 150 new affordable homes had been completed in the last year. In Dunsfold’s Gratton Close 17 homes at an affordable rent, social rent and shared ownership (SO) had been handed over saying…
“Something that in the future we want to do more of.”
She reeled off a string of sites where homes were either built and occupied or under construction including:
A mixed site of 27 homes S/O and rent in Badshot Lea, Farnham
48 in Crondall Lane at Abbey View.
28 new social homes at Little Acres, Badshot Lead
27 social homes at Little Meadow, Cranleigh
Several conversions of Waverley owned community rooms in accommodation in Griggs Meadow Dunsfold, Woodyers Close Wonersh and Stonepit in Godalming.
On track for 135 mixed-use homes at Springfield, Dunsfold, some with some subsidised low rents for local people.
At Amlets Way, a Cala Homes site in Cranleigh there were five new homes, 3 S/O.
consents had been granted for 4 sites in Chiddingfold; a site in Churt and a site in Witley.
She said families had now moved into Site A – 37 new homes for existing tenants (pictured below) at Ockford Ridge. Part of a large regeneration site in Godalming
However, there are now 1,000 on Waverley’s waiting list for new homes. The council is now investigating ways of providing modular units to house the homeless.
The start on homes at the Aarons Hill site in Godalming was delayed due to a footpath diversion order.
Cllr Richard Cole (Lib Dem) Cranleigh was first in a long line of councillors to heartily congratulate the Waverley housing team who he said –
“did not bat an eye-lid in the middle of the COVID pandemic – just carried on.”
Just a week or so ago, Surrey’s head honcho Tim Oliver was telling us all that his bid to become one of the largest Unitary Authorities in the country had cost us, the voting fodder, just a measly £100/£150,000.
Now here’s what it really cost us Surrey rate paying dummies. Yes, you guessed!
£246,000 – and counting…
And the Waverley Web will bet that’s only the tip of the iceberg – as no officer or legal time will have been accounted for – because all local authority staff have been paid their full salaries throughout the COVID period when the rest of us have either lost our jobs, about to lose our jobs or are on furlough!
SCC spent £71,000 on a review of alternative scenarios and options,
£107,000 on developing a business case for a single unitary,
£30,000 on evaluating the financial resilience of local government in Surrey, and…
£38,000 on commissioning a research company to survey residents’ views.
They fail to mention all the county Comms team’s time spent on producing a propaganda sheet proclaiming how they Saved Surrey in the pandemic. And, there we were thinking that most of the work had been carried out by our borough and district councils.
Cllr Oliver rejected the suggestion the money had been wasted, saying…
“The work done had been highly valuable, whether or not any reorganisation takes place in the future.
“The money spent on research looking at more effective community engagement and the structure of local government in Surrey will be essential to our future work – particularly on local community networks – regardless of any reorganisation.”
So Tim Oliver actually believes that wasting money on a personal ego-boosting power-grab was all worthwhile when the county council is losing money hand over fist on its eye-watering investments in commercial and retail property all over the country.
No wonder the Government stepped in and changed the rules. It has announced that councils can only invest in their own patch – a bit late – the horse had bolted to Bolton Boris!
Now thanks to Cllr Oliver’s hasty action – the 11 boroughs and districts went into panic mode stumping up another eye-watering £300,000 to find a way through the mire they had been dumped in. Kerching! More valuable time and money wasted, during the worst pandemic this country has ever faced?
Let us all pray that consultants KPMG hasn’t spent it all now ‘Bob The Builder’ Secretary of State Robert Jenrick has put the brakes on the Government’s Devolution white paper due in the Autumn – to the background sound of screeching brakes – do we hear – postponed/dumped until…?
So now Surrey’s economic powerhouse is not looking quite so powerful, particularly when it has just announced that fees for disabled care are to rise by £1m! Watch the short video and hear what Cllr Fiona White – the Lib Dem leader of Adult Social Care has to say about that!
So exactly what is this all about? The recently leaked County Councils Network (CCN) letter makes it abundantly clear the main motivation behind the unitary bids was to gain political advantage for the Conservative Party, and sadly the same seems to be true in our County Hall. Yet again, they’ve put their party ahead of doing what’s right for us – the residents of Surrey. Surrey’s Lib Dems have stated they are not opposed to local government reorganisation, believing three unitaries would be the best bet. However, they believe that Surrey’s hasty bid without discussion or consultation with residents or districts has been a dangerous distraction during COVID and the economic pressures now faced
Who will pay for this gargantuan ego trip? Just wait until you hear the thud of council tax demands landing on our doormats?
Could Guildford and Waverley’s Integrated Care Partnership’s shock announcement that it will no longer support Cranleigh Village Health Trust’s (CVHT) 20-year-long battle to build a Private Nursing Home and community beds be the final spanner in the works?
Both the most recent planning application WA/2020/0965 and a planning appeal have both been POSTPONED.
According to an announcement on the CVHT’s website:
During the past week, Guildford and Waverley ICP (Integrated Care Partnership) have unexpectedly advised Cranleigh Village Health Trust (CVHT) that they are no longer able to formally support its proposals relating to the creation of 16 Community Beds within the planned 64-bed care home on Knowle Lane. This decision is based on ICP’s application of the newly introduced NHS’s Comprehensive Model of Personal Care.
Now there’s a funny old thing. Just last week the very same ICP, which includes Surrey County Council, had its supporting letter – dated 18 August 2020- lodged on Your Waverley’s Planning portal saying it supported the very same scheme! They say a week is a long time in politics – perhaps even less if you work for the NHS? No surprise there then – we understand that the NHS and a succession of PCT’s and CCG’s and Uncle Tom Cobley’s have been so**ing the beleaguered charity and its donors who doggedly supported it, for donkey’s years!
We digress…
The ICP also state that their accumulated evidence suggests that patients do much better if, when recovering, they are able to go home accompanied by an appropriate level of support.
This change of ICP stance is, we understand, a reflection of their assessment that the nature of community healthcare is changing, particularly in the past year, and that there will be a significant shift away from bed-based care for older people.
No surprise there then. The charity’s supposed partner HC-One is being taken to court for failing in its duty of care to shedloads of its Scottish residents – after employing staff from Kent.
Say the charity… It is clear, however, that the community will continue to need care home beds (as well as hospital beds). Indeed, CVHT’s research, which was submitted with the planning application showed a high demand for care home beds, and it also showed ICP’s previous position to be in favour of the care home setting.
So in other words – they ain’t giving up until the Fat Lady Sings:
Wakey, wakey – where have you been CVHT during the bumpy Coronacoaster ride that nursing homes all over the country have been on since early in March when the dreaded COVID gave them all a punch in the proverbial?
Most of the old, and the bold old, have told us here at the WW they are either going to live in an annexe/at the bottom of their kids’ gardens or drink themselves under – they ain’t going into nursing homes – no Siree.
Whilst the ‘home-care’ policy is well-established and will obviously have some impacts on care-home occupancy patterns, the degree of such impacts is quite uncertain. Therefore, CVHT will continue to explore how the planned Community Beds will be provided in Cranleigh, and so restore those lost at the Cranleigh Village Hospital in 2006.
In other words folks! This dumb outfit, which has trousered over £1.8m of your hard-earned cash will continue pouring even more of your money down ‘Your Waverley’s overflowing planning pan? Because they just cannot get their heads around the difference between a hospital bed and a continuing care bed!
Following this very recent ICP policy update, CVHT says it will now rigorously assess how they can best fulfil their primary objective of providing appropriate health care support for the local community; this will include consultations with key local stakeholders. In addition, CVHT has arranged further discussions with ICP and Surrey County Council in order to assess the potential for a modified policy.
Ah-ha – so now we know that the ICP and Surrey County Council combined to have their policy all wrong and CVHT will help them modify it?
To facilitate their option-assessment process, CVHT has asked Waverley Borough Council to postpone their evaluation of the current Planning Application. CVHT has also asked the Planning Inspectorate to postpone the hearing of the Appeal against the previously refused Planning Application from 2019
Watch this space as the controversy which has split Cranleigh asunder continues…
Following a dog fight in Long Gore, Binscombe, in Farncombe, at around 10 pm last Friday, (September 25) a man was arrested.
Officers responding to reports that one dog had attacked another, found both dogs injured. They were taken to a veterinary surgery but sadly one was so badly mauled it had to be put down.
A 53-year-old man was arrested, interviewed and bailed while the investigation continues. His dog is being held by police.
Anyone in Long Gore between 9.30 and 10 pm on Friday with any relevant information, dashcam or mobile phone footage that may help, is asked to contact officers.
You can report online using webchat or webformhttps://www.surrey.police.uk/ro/report/ocr/af/how-to-report-a-crime/on theSurrey Police website, quoting crime reference number 452000102368. If you wish to remain anonymous, call independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
Here are the proposed sites in these two villages now earmarked for development in Waverley’s Draft Local Plan Part 2. The public will have an opportunity to comment on these proposals when the public consultation takes place sometime during October.
However, in Chairman Carole Cockburn’s race to have her say on the next phase of the important new document, she said she wouldn’t refer to residents questions. She told the Overview & Scrutiny committee that the public should refer to the council’s website if they wanted to know what Milford’s Kathy Smythe and Parish Cllr Gillian McCalden had to say.
According to the report considered by the Environment O & S Committee, the allocations for future development now proposed for Milford and Witley comprise three sites. Two of these (Land at Highcroft, between Haslemere Road and Petworth Road and Land at Wheeler Street Nurseries) were proposed allocations in the earlier draft presubmission document. They are relatively small sites (providing 7 and 20 dwellings respectively).
The other site now proposed – (supported by Witley Parish Council in the link above ) for allocation, is the land at Secretts, Hurst Farm, and Milford.
The land and buildings on the Milford nursery site now stand derelict. No more pick your own?
The sites at Coneycroft and Manor Lodge, Milford and Land West of Petworth Road, Witley, that were proposed for allocation in the draft Plan considered in October 2018, are no longer included in the current draft The Secretts site is not within one of the broad locations that LPP1 identified as having potential for removal from the Green Belt and was not, therefore, included as a proposed allocation in earlier draft versions of LPP2. However, officers have critically evaluated the situation and have also been mindful of the community support for the allocation of the Secretts site, expressed through the Parish Council. At a Witley Parish Council meeting on Thursday 27th February 2020, the following resolution was made:
“The preferred location for the majority of the remaining housing that Witley Parish has to deliver by 2032, to meet its target, is the land at the Secretts site in the centre of the village of Milford.”
Given the local support for Secretts to be considered for allocation, the Council sought legal advice on whether any Green Belt sites lying outside the LPP1 ‘asterisked’ areas could be considered for removal from the Green Belt in LPP2. The advice given is that there is nothing in law to prevent the Council from considering sites outside the broad areas identified in LPP1. However, if the Council were to consider a site outside of these areas then there would need to be clear and cogent reasons for doing so.
‘No community wants this’: Sussex new town plans anger local Tories
Although the Waverley Web mainly concentrates on all things Waverley/Surrey – the county is not an island and development on Waverley’s borders – e.g. Bordon – affects all our lives here in Farnham.
This scheme in Adversane adjoins the Surrey/Sussex border near Loxwood and Dunsfold and would mainly access the A281 Guildford to Horsham Road.
The scheme named Kingswood for nearly 3,000 new homes assembled by Sir Michael Hintze, who has given £4.6m to the Conservatives is a hop, skip and a jump from Dunsfold’s new garden village (2,600) homes on the former airfield on the outskirts of Cranleigh
Sketches of the proposed new town of Kingswood, on the Surrey/Sussex border. Not to be confused with Surrey’s Kingswood.
Plans for a new town in rural Sussex backed by one of the Conservative party’s biggest donors and close allies of Prince Charles are exposing a split in the Tory party over how to rapidly accelerate housebuilding.
The scheme for 2,850 homes, is being proposed on open fields at Adversane which has been assembled by hedge fund billionaire Sir Michael Hintze who has given £4.6m to the Conservatives. Its design is partly inspired by Poundbury, the ersatz Georgian town in Dorset created by Prince Charles, and Sir Michael Peat, the Prince of Wales’s former private secretary is a director of the development company.
But it is being opposed by local Conservative MP Andrew Griffith, who said:
“it is the wrong type of development in the wrong place” and local Tory councillors who have warned: “No community wants this on their doorstep.”
It looks set to be a test case for the government’s controversial new planning strategy announced last month which is set to relax national planning rules and set significantly higher local housebuilding targets in areas including Horsham.
John Halsall, the Tory leader of Wokingham borough council in Berkshire, which is also facing central government demands to build significantly more homes warned of a high political cost saying
“You won’t have a Tory left in the south or south-east of England.”
Some of the land is owned by Eton College, the alma mater of the prime minister, Boris Johnson. The largest parcel which would be built over is a farm purchased by Hintze for £10m from Mike Stock, the songwriter behind a string of 1980s hits by Kylie Minogue, Rick Astley and Bananarama.
Local opponents say the project – which could ultimately create a town of around 10,000 people – threatens rare wildlife, an increase in car congestion and risks becoming a dormitory for London commuters.
“There is an enormous amount of antipathy to this scheme,” said Julian Trumper, a local resident organising opposition. “Horsham has already taken enough of Sussex’s requirement to build housing and this potential growth is unsustainable. Infrastructure and road and rail links are insufficient. The displacement to wildlife and established ecosystems by building a new town in the open countryside is incalculable.”
The project claims that it will: “focus on building a community for people of all ages and providing a platform for economic opportunity and sustainable growth” and will champion the principle of “beauty” in town planning identified by Sir Roger Scruton in his report to the government on planning and architecture.
Kingswood promises to be a ‘socially inclusive, mixed-income development’ with ‘community at the heart’.
But the row over whether it should go ahead exposes a growing schism in Conservative ranks over two proposed reforms to accelerate housebuilding.
The first is a new planning system that will make it easier and quicker for developers to build on greenfield sites, which Conservative councillors have complained undermines local democratic involvement by proposing zones where detailed planning consents would not berequired.
The second is new inflated house building targets which backbench Conservative MPs and council leaders have criticised as too high and ignoring local needs. The new target for Horsham would see the area required to deliver 1,715 new homes a year, more than double the current target of 800.
The high status of Kingswood’s backers – with close links to the top of government and the monarchy – has also sparked fears that local influence could be further undermined, with opponents citing the planning scandal earlier this year in which it emerged that the housing secretary, Robert Jenrick, backed a project by party donor Richard Desmond against the advice of officials.
In other words, it is not what you know but who you know in the wonderful world of developers?
“After what we saw with Jenrick and Desmond, we have the impression that the property developers are doing all this with barely any local democracy at all.
A spokesperson for Horsham district council said:
“Any site that is allocated in the next step of the local plan process will be subject to full public scrutiny at a public examination conducted by an independent planning inspector. Each site will be assessed to determine whether it is suitable, achievable and available, in a public arena.”
The local Conservative MP, Andrew Griffith, said: “We are building on greenfield, we’re not using brownfield land. This is the wrong type of development in the wrong place. The identity of the landowner is not important. I am giving voice to constituent concerns.”He told a Commons debate earlier this month: “So many of my constituents in villages of every letter of the alphabet, are having their lives blighted by the prospect of inappropriate and unsustainable development”.
Philip Circus, a Conservative member of Horsham council in whose ward the development is proposed, added:
“I am not interested that people are connected with royalty or people that donate to the Conservative party. It cuts no ice with me. We don’t feel any compulsion to doff our caps to anyone other than the residents. This is a rural community which in infrastructure terms does not look like an area for major housing development.”
The Kingswood masterplan has been submitted for inclusion in Horsham district council’s local plan, which is currently out to public consultation. The director of the development company, Dominic Richards, was formerly a director at the Prince’s Foundation for Building Community – the heir to the throne’s architecture and planning charity which promotes traditional urbanism.
‘Your Waverley’s Draft Local Plan Part 2 has now been published. Included, are Areas of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI’s) (ASVI’s.) This policy aims to protect areas from development
Sites in Farnham, Haslemere, Godalming and Cranleigh are included which are considered by the council to be areas that contribute to the particular character of an area.
In Cranleigh’s case, it aims to protect an area around the Snoxhall Fields and in particular, the site proposed by The Cranleigh Village Hospital Health Trust (CVHT) for a controversial new private 64-bed Care Home – 16 community continuing care beds – and an apartment block of 14 individual one and two-bedroom self-contained apartments. A scheme which is a 20% reduction on an application refused in 2019. An appeal has also been lodged Planning Inspectors reference: APP/R3650/W/20/3253368 against the refusal of the larger scheme for an 80-bed care home for Surrey people and 28 bedsits for health workers in Surrey. Comments can be made to the Inspector by the 23 October at https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk Or by letter to Tommy Caie, Room 3B, Eagle Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol BS1 6PN.
The former Guildford & Waverley CCG has since April 2020 become part of a huge organisation called Surrey Heartlands. This includes CCG’s from – East Surrey; Guildford & Waverley; North West Surrey and Surrey Downs.
Could Waverley’s Draft Local Plan Part 2 put a spanner in The works of a bid to build a controversial new care home in Cranleigh Town Centre.
Areas of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVIs is a local designation that was developed as part of the Local Plan Briefs of 1981 and 1984. The importance of the designation is to protect areas of land unprotected by national landscape designations, but that still need protection because of the role they play in establishing the character of a locality and preventing coalescence between developed areas.
The issues that the designation addresses are:
Where land is vulnerable to development pressure
Where protection is essential due to strategic visual importance
Where there are strong environmental reasons
For the preservation of the character of the locality
In order to prevent coalescence
Where parcels of land are relatively small and open on the urban fringe The designation was reviewed as part of the LLDR undertaken for Local Plan Part 1 but detailed boundary changes were not considered. Local Plan Part 1 retains the existing ASVI areas under Policy RE3 following the conclusions of the LLDR, pending a review of the detailed boundaries in Local Plan Part 2.
So the question is? Will Waverley Planners continue once again refuse the scheme due to go before them shortly. bearing in mind that the site is – in the opinion of Cranleigh residents who signed off on the Cranleigh Parish’s `Neighbourhood Plan, now with Inspectors – an Area of Strategic Visual Importance?
The residents over there in the eastern villages, who dug deep into their pockets to supply £1.8m to build a new hospital will now have to wait and see if Waverley Planners will succumb to the threat of a costly public inquiry before a Government Inspector that now hangs over them?
Villagers are now asking? How can a local charity Cranleigh Village Hospital Health Trust (CVHT) afford yet another expensive planning application with all that it entails, plus an appeal that includes a public hearing, when it does not have sufficient funds in its coffers?
Although the Trust includes in the value of its accounts £2.5m for land it paid the parish £1, despite having no extant planning consent, it is claimed, it does not have insufficient funds for costly planning battles. Battles that have split the village, and increased Waverley’s officers’ workload as they are bombarded with hundreds of letters and a petition launched by Andy Webb’s (Nothing to do with the WW) Cranleigh Community Group which so far has 2,686 signatures. http://chng.it/VzZwfTL4PH
The ASVI in Cranleigh has been reviewed as part of the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan and so the boundary will remain unchanged until the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan is adopted with a new ASVI boundary. Policy RE3 of Local Plan Part 1 will apply to the Cranleigh ASVI as set out in Map 35 below until the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan is adopted, at which point Policy RE3 will apply to the ASVI as set out in the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan.
Policy RE3 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites, will apply to the areas designated as Areas of Strategic Visual Importance (ASVI) in Cranleigh below.
The Triangle at the top of the land edged in green is opposite the new Berkeley Homes(425) site in Knowle Lane – formerly part of parish-owned Snoxhall playing fields. The land which Cranleigh parish council has asked to be returned, as it claims the proposed use is not in the spirit of a covenant it signed over 20 years ago for a hospital and day hospital to replace the old Cranleigh village Hospital – which is now back in use.
