Will Dunsfold Aerodrome become home to 6,000 – yes really, six thousand, new homes?

Featured

Cranleigh_banner2.jpg

That’s what the Chairman of Cranleigh Civic Society predicted when he urged its members to be vigilant and sign up to fight for Cranleigh through the organisation he now leads. 

Although the CCS chairman claimed that consent had already been granted for 1,800 homes  WW believes he meant that Waverley planners had granted consent.  A final decision by the Secretary of State for Communities is expected next week  29th March. The Local Plan includes a figure of 2,600.

Over here in Farnham, we learned from our Cranleigh followers that concern is growing for the new town that nestles in the Surrey Hills! So much so, that with 1,357  homes already consented,  there are fears that with many more to come, both there, and in the surrounding villages, the local infrastructure will not cope!

CRANLEIGH”S RECENT FLOOD FORUM NEWS.

MP Anne Milton and her Flood Forum team which including representatives from Thames Water, Waverley Borough Council and Surrey County Council responded to questions which had been sent to her in advance, including those from the Cranleigh Civic Society. She said she, and concerned villagers,  now wanted some answers.

She urged the public to look at Cranleigh Parish Council’s website for news. http://www.cranleighpc.org/_VirDir/CoreContents/News/Display.aspx?id=11210

Around 60 people, including a handful of borough/or parish councillors heard from the ‘experts’ of any progress made since the last meeting.

Present: The Rt Hon Anne Milton MP (Chair); Waverley Borough Council (WBC): William Gibb, Planning Enforcement; Nick Laker, Engineer; Beverley Bell, Clerk, Cranleigh Parish Council; Sarah Coleby, Office of Anne Milton MP; Nishad Sowky, Thames Water; Paul Hudson, Environment Agency (EA);  Tor Peebles, Surrey County Council (SCC); Parish Councillors –  Brian Freeston; Angela Richardson; and borough councillor Patricia Ellis.

MISCONNECTIONS TO THE MAINS

Nishad Sowky, Thames Water said this was an ongoing battle and his organisation relied heavily upon intelligence provided by the public.   A specialist engineer had been appointed and action planned. However, he stressed, TW couldn’t enforce any action required only Waverley Borough Council was permitted to do this. It was suggested homeowners should be required to provide evidence of approval if it was believed illegal connections had been made. 

It was revealed that Cranleigh’s foul sewer was inundated with surface water or ingress from groundwater.  With more housing, it was suggested that 12 times dry weather flow may be required, and a total upgrade was required to accommodate both current housing and the large-scale development now approved.

Database:

Cllr Townsend had previously requested a hotspot database be provided as she believed that residents local knowledge was crucial in identifying problems. These should be reported to the Parish Council, in addition to the relevant agencies, e.g. Thames Water/WBC’s Environmental Health/Environment Agency as appropriate.

Cranleigh Waters:  Thames Water confirmed that the wet weather flow is 10 times the dry weather flow – whereas tank capacity is 6 times dry weather flow.

PLANNING

Waverley planners reported that the Local Plan includes a general policy on avoiding pollution and included measures for mitigating flooding.  

It was stressed that flooding occurred less when the EA maintained the river, and that annual maintenance was vital.  The importance of Riparian owners honouring their responsibilities was stressed, but the EA should move any obstructions whenever a  specific flood risk existed.

Commenting on a decision made by Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee described as ‘awful’ by the CCS  for 55 homes on a flood plain in Elmbridge Road, where Thakeham Homes scheme for  55 homes was granted despite huge local opposition,  Tor Peebles (SCC) suggested that Waverley councillors who granted such schemes would benefit from improved knowledge of drainage issues! He believed councillors would benefit from extra training.

William Gibb, Planning Enforcement Waverley, suggested that some junior planning officers also lacked sufficient knowledge of drainage issues.

Mr Peebles also reiterated his claim that the National Standard for Sustainable Urban Drainage Schemes (SUDS) were not fit for purpose and gave as an example of a development on the river Test in Hampshire, where (SUDS) provided for new properties had now flooded! After receiving his letter on SUDS standards, the MP said she would take his concerns to a Government Minister.

LOCAL ISSUES

Cranleigh Waters: Thames Water confirmed it had written to the owner of West Cranleigh Nurseries who, it is alleged, had illegally dredged the river. He said Waverley planners were aware of the breach and conditions would be imposed when its detailed planning application for the first phase of 265 homes was considered!

 Planning Applications: The Cranleigh Society remained concerned about developments granted planning permission with no apparent objection by the EA, SCC or Thames Water, particularly the Thakeham Homes development.

Residents said it was ‘a disgrace’ that planners and the EA preferred to accept a developers evidence over anecdotal and photographic evidence provided by residents.  Work was carried out by Adrian Clarke (Cranleigh Society) and Doug Hill (SCC) in 2015 to map the floodplain, including collecting and providing photographic evidence. They claimed this had not been properly considered and taken into account by SCC as the lead Flood Authority.

The MP said she would seek a meeting with Thakeham Homes and Cranleigh representatives. 

DRINKING WATER CONCERNS

Thames Water claimed blue asbestos found in Cranleigh’s pipes were not a danger to public health. as there was a very low concentration. However, 3.38 km of water pipes would be replaced. This includes Mapledrakes Road, Godalming Road; Satchel Court Road; Barhatch Lane, Sapte Close, and Cromwell Road.

It was pointed out to the TW representative that most of the roads mentioned weren’t actually in Cranleigh but in other towns and villages including Alfold, Godalming and Ewhurst! And… if only 3.8 km of pipework was being replaced… this was a very small proportion of the work required! 

The meeting heard that a response from The World Health Organisation through The Drinking Water Inspectorate (Sue Pennison) was still awaited. Residents commented that New Zealand and Australia were not waiting for the WHO’s decision,  but had begun a huge replacement programme! 

 

Bridge over troubled waters.

Featured

Love Your River! Village Hall meeting 26 March 7pm

Love Your River! Cranleigh Village Hall Meeting Monday 26th March 7 till 9 pm Can you spread the word about this important meeting please – Cranleigh.

 LOVE YOUR RIVER! Monday 26th March 7 – 9 pm Cranleigh village Hall RSVP emma.berry@surreywt.org.uk

JOIN US TO CELEBRATE THE PARTNERSHIP WORK TO IMPROVE CRANLEIGH WATERS Discover how … Continue reading Love Your River! Village Hall meeting 26 March 7pm

 

 

Virgin caring for Farnham…just! But… what do the changes mean for Cranleigh?

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.18.46

Virgin Care is to continue providing adult community services in one corner of Surrey after winning a contract extension.

Under the deal –  agreed recently – Virgin Care will continue to provide services to Surrey Heath Clinical Commissioning Group’s population, plus those living in and around Farnham for another year.

 

Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.29.31Q So where does this leave the new private nursing home proposed for Cranleigh?

    Q  And exactly who will have access to the community beds Cranleigh Village Hospital Trust has been promising the town for over 20 years?  

Virgin Care provided services to the whole of western Surrey until last April. At that point, CSH Surrey took on services in the North West Surrey Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area. From next month services in Guildford and Waverley will pass from Virgin Care to a consortium of the Royal Surrey County Hospital Foundation Trust and local GP’s.

Screen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.36.44.pngScreen Shot 2018-03-12 at 09.37.24

So, £328,000 was extracted from our health economy because the powers that be couldn’t conduct its procurement process properly!

This left  Virgin Care covering just the 95,000 Surrey Heath population and the area around Farnham, a town of 40,000 people.

Governing body papers for North East Hampshire and Farnham CCG for January show local leaders had been concerned that the much-reduced contract would not be attractive for Virgin Care because of the loss of economies of scale and that the company might serve notice on the CCG.

But in a joint statement, Surrey Heath and North East Hampshire and Farnham CCGs said a £10.8m contract had been agreed with Virgin Care to continue for another year, based on the previous year’s spend but with a small uplift for inflation.

It said: “Both localities are fully developing plans for community services in light of the North East Hampshire and Farnham vanguard and Surrey Heath new model of care, and continue to do so within the Frimley integrated care system. Our intention is to ensure the market is engaged when appropriate as part of this process,” 

Ten of the Virgin Care-run inpatient beds at Farnham Community Hospital are used by patients from the Guildford and Waverley CCG area, including some requiring rehabilitation after stroke.

 So exactly where does this leave Cranleigh’s long-held hopes and dreams?… And why is the town, that raised millions of pounds for community beds,  still waiting for a planning application promised in 2017?

Will a new car park and increased charges put even more pressure on Cranleigh’s residential​ roads?

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-02-09 at 13.23.20.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 10.26.11

Charges for the Snoxhall Playing Fields Car Park are expected to generate around £60,000 a year of much-needed cash for Cranleigh Parish Council.

Administering and  providing warden services, for the car park, which was previously free, will also generate around  £15,000 income for ‘Your Waverley.”

At the same time, the council is considering ways of preventing unsocial parking around the borough’s towns and villages by introducing or extending double yellow lines! It also intends adding more parking restrictions right across the borough of Waverley.

Does this mean that even more residential roads in and around the borough will be liberally peppered with cars?

Residents have been asked to respond to Waverley’s new parking review.

17.12.01 – Snoxhall may be avoided if charging plan persists copy

Our Annie wades in to put a bridge over Cranleigh’s troubled waters!

Featured

It’s no news to anyone in the borough of Waverley that the East of the borough is getting more than its fair share of development,  some of which is to be built on flood plains! In addition, Cranleigh and the surrounding villages regularly flood and burst water pipes are commonplace, whatever the weather!

So Cranleigh’s very own watchdog is wagging its tail on behalf the townsfolk and is calling in the A-Team – non-other than Mistress  Anne Milton, who we all know, is not adverse to putting her whip across the backs of those in high places. Perhaps, she can get some sense of Thames Water and the Environment Agency! Cranleigh people live in hope!

 

Screen Shot 2018-03-08 at 09.48.39.png

Screen Shot 2018-03-08 at 09.48.09.pngScreen Shot 2018-03-08 at 09.47.58.png

A bitter pill to​ swallow over CIL?

Featured

Screen Shot 2018-03-05 at 16.54.34.png

A brilliant article from The Cranleigh Civic Society  poses some interesting questions for ‘Your Waverley.’

Upon some of which, we have commented.

Cranleigh Civic Society (CCS) received a grumbling letter; a grumbling letter. You know the type, it was probably signed ‘Disgusted of Dunsfold’ and it went something like this:

Let’s talk about Community Infrastructure Levy now, at last, we have a LOCAL PLAN, but what does this mean?

An agreed LOCAL PLAN gives our planners at Waverley Borough Council the power to control future housing development; they can plan for the development of new infrastructure, roads, railways, schools, hospitals etc and, very importantly, it enables the Borough Council to charge house builders a COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY, known as CIL for short.

What is CIL?

CIL raises monies towards the cost of the new Infrastructure needed for the developments to go ahead. What a wonderful step forward we all exclaim!! And so it is. But what of the housing already approved? approaching 2000 houses throughout the Borough. Well, unfortunately:

CIL is not retrospective.

How much will Waverley charge?

So as the consultation period is still running, there is no CIL Schedule!

According to WBC’s website, Waverley’s draft proposal sets a CIL rate of £395/ Sq Metre of floor area for all new housing, (about £40,000 on an average 3-bed house), except, quite reasonably, for ‘Affordable Housing’ where there is no charge. So, taking the 35% of Affordable Housing the Borough is committed to build away from the approximately 2,000 houses so far approved, there will be a loss of CIL to the tune of at least £60 MILLION pounds! £60 MILLION pounds that will NOT be available to improve our ROADS, our SCHOOLS, our HOSPITALS, our BOROUGH!!

How could this have happened we may ask?

WW It happened because our planning officers at Waverley, under the direction of the Infamous Mrs MOP, Richard Shut-the-Gates and Robert Knowless, failed to come up with a plan that satisfied the Government’s criteria for a LOCAL PLAN.

How a Local Plan is developed by the Borough Planners

The basic criteria affecting local residents, as council tax payers, was to identify suitable sites for new housing. This has to satisfy central Government’s housing policy, a requirement that was for about 350 houses a year until 2032. Woking BC has had an agreed Local Plan for some years but that has now proved inadequate, so the inspector added a further 150 or so houses per year to WBC’s Local Plan to cover Woking’s shortfall! So WBC’s annual requirement rose to 509 houses until 2032 (a total of 7,126 houses) 35% of which must be ‘Affordable’. Plus a further rise to 590 was deemed necessary by the inspector when we last looked.

WW. What about local democracy … hell, what about democracy full-stop?

Of these 7,126 houses, a minimum of 4,300, rising to perhaps 5,000, are planned for CRANLEIGH and DUNSFOLD PARK, with the balance spread around the rest of the Borough; We have to ask – just how democratic is that?

Improvements to our Local Roads and Rail?

Perhaps we could have a new road to rescue us from the A281 blight? Unfortunately not! There will, however, be a new roundabout at Shalford, just 100 or so metres from the existing roundabout, which feels as if it will bring the traffic to a complete standstill; and the Elmbridge Road and Bramley crossroads junctions will be reconfigured, so that’s a relief!!! There will also be a new canal bridge at Elmbridge but no new bridge over the old Railway.

What of the Railway?

No plans whatsoever have been considered since SCC’s last feasibility study found not enough demand and that it wasn’t affordable.

What of DUNSFOLD AERODROME?

WW: There is a plan for 1,800 or so houses plus workspace, shops, a school, a medical centre, etc, which is languishing on the Secretary of State’s desk, awaiting Government approval or – as POW & the Rt Hon Mistress Milton sincerely hope and pray (after all, they’ve both lobbied hard enough!) dismissal. Oh, and in the future, if the Secretary of State doesn’t doff his cap and genuflect to POW and Mistress Milton there’s the prospect of an increase to 2,600 houses!

However, it seems that the developers have convinced the powers that be at Waverley that the development of Dunsfold would be jeopardised by the imposition of CIL on the whole development, so there will be NO CIL on the entire development – thereby saving the developers up to £100 MILLION over the life of the development – so that’s ok then.

So let’s hope the plan goes ahead fully and that our Planners use all their discretion to put right the wrongs – spreading the housing out more fairly – hunting for better sites…… they can – but will they?

WW. Says:

In the interest of accuracy – the WW does not want the Flying Scot coming after us with his sgian dubh (that’s dagger to us Sassenachs!), it is prudent of us to point out that under Dunsfold Park’s 106 contributions it will provide in excess of £50 MILLION towards highway improvements, school provision and improved leisure facilities in Cranleigh and other infrastructure improvements including a bus service – the first of its kind in the country, in perpetuity! Not to mention the obvious, affordable housing within the development.

Alfold Parish Council – which has opposed development – opposed pretty much everything – that has been proposed at Dunsfold Park also has the bare-faced cheek to be seeking £10 MILLION from the Dunsfold developers for infrastructure improvements. You couldn’t make it up, really, you couldn’t. No doubt the rest of the anti-Dunsfold Parish Councils will be lining up to follow suit but they’d best get their skates on as it’s now less than a month to go before the Secretary of State is due to deliver his decision on 31 March. The only question left is will he or won’t he bend to Mistress Milton and POW’s will? If he does both he and the Government’s housing policy will be a laughing-stock … but, never mind, Mistress Milton and POW will have had the last laugh and we’ll all know what we’ve long suspected: that he who pays the piper calls the tune!

And.. dare we mentioned it?

NO DUNSFOLD = A LOCAL PLAN WITH A BIG BROWN HOLE IN IT which =   A BIG GREEN HOLE IN THE BOROUGH’S COUNTRYSIDE!

Frost bites​ Cranleigh!

JUST LISTEN TO THIS FARNHAM WOMAN WHO HAS NO SHAME!

 

 

What Cranleigh people would like to know Councillor Pat Frost (Conservative Farnham Wrecclesham & Rowledge) is exactly which applications did you turn down?  And exactly which applications are you referring to where an Inspector agreed with you? 

Perhaps we should respectfully remind you that the Joint Planning Committee of which you are a member has repeatedly ignored the views of Cranleigh people for years! It has consistently approved schemes in the countryside when local people wanted brownfield sites developed first – these include:

  • Crest Nicholson – 119 homes in Horsham Rd followed by another 149 – for which outline has been granted and despite no detailed approval, WORK HAS ALREADY STARTED!
  • West Cranleigh Nurseries, Alfold Rd. 265 – GRANTED.
  • Little Meadow, Alfold Road. 75 GRANTED – now coming back for 89! 
  • Amlets Park, Amlets Lane. 149 GRANTED.
  • Swallowhurst, Ewhurst Road, Cranleigh. 55 GRANTED
  • Berkeley Homes, Knowle Lane/Alfold Road 425. Refused by Waverley – GRANTED at Appeal.
  • Thakeham Homes, Elmbridge Road. 55 dwellings on a flood plain! GRANTED.
  • Hewitts Industrial Estate 120 Homes on a brownfield site Refused by WBC – GRANTED at appeal!
  • Cranleigh Hotel – 2 homes. GRANTED
  • Penwerris Horsham Road, Refused by Waverley and then included in Part 11 of its  Local Plan – application to be submitted shortly.
  • Garden grabbing – too numerous to mention!

WE COULD GO ON!  SO COUNCILLOR FROST, WHICH DEVELOPMENTS HAVE YOU ACTUALLY DEFENDED SO SUCCESSFULLY? Please let us know by contacting us here: If not then we take it that you agree that you talk a load of tosh and the people of Waverley, particularly those here in Farnham need to know that.

contact@waverleyweb.org

 

Is the Cranleigh Society shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?

Here’s the latest message from Cranleigh’s ‘former rather weary watchdog’ that suddenly appears to have a new lease of life. But, as Cranleigh sits on the cusp of becoming Waverley’s fourth town, is it now too late to save its rural character?

Screen Shot 2018-02-21 at 19.34.10.png

The Committee of Cranleigh Civic Society announced this week that it has been strengthened and energised to fight the growing avalanche of proposed housing.

In the wake of the adoption of ‘Your Waverley’s’ Local Plan, far be it for us at the Waverley Web to want to pee on anyone’s fireworks, but isn’t it all over bar a lot of shouting? 41 councillors voted for – one was against – and three councillors abstained! All Cranleigh members voted for the plan, which will undoubtedly lead to yet more housing in Cranleigh. But then, why wouldn’t they?

Most of them were taking part in secret meetings with developers and planning officers long before the ink was even dry on the Daft Local Plan to determine just where thousands of new homes on the countryside would go!  And, as one Cranleigh councillor, the late Brian Ellis, stated at the time – Cranleigh shops need more footfall!’  Now those same councillors actually believe an adopted local plan will minimise the harm! Do they? Do they really? Whilst most of them were busy opposing development at Dunsfold Aerodrome, believing Cranleigh should become a New Town, they were also busy meeting with developers, even in their own homes, planning Cranleigh’s demise. They should be careful what they wish for – soon they may get the worst of both worlds! 

The new man heading the CCS, Terry Stewart, was Chair, then President, of Dorset CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) for eight years. Whilst there he was faced with the threat of housing developments throughout the Poole and Bournemouth Green Belt so lead a team of six villages and communities to defeat the proposals. This included MPs speaking to a demonstration outside Parliament and a procession to Downing Street to present a petition to the Prime Minister (see photo). The proposals were defeated – as were plans for a new village at Lytchett Minster. (See photos below).

Westminster Palace
Westminster Palace
Downing Street
Downing Street

It says experience shows that attacks on the Green Belt and unprotected beautiful countryside can only be defeated if there is a strong, professional team leading an active, widespread community with clear objectives. So the new Civic Society Team includes a retired Solicitor, two experts on building and infrastructure, an insurance expert and environmental and wildlife specialists – meeting on a fortnightly basis or more often if needed.

The society understand that villagers may believe that, whatever they feel, the Council and Government will do whatever they want to do, but the successes referred to above demonstrate that these battles CAN be won! Apathy only plays into their hands – do you really want this to happen?

It claims, ‘CRANLEIGH IS UNDER AN INCREASING THREAT FROM DEVELOPERS – changing your quality of life and the Cranleigh we know and love.’ Since 2014, Waverley Borough Council has approved the building of over 1,300 houses in Cranleigh. Think for a moment the huge impact this will have on the A281, our B-roads and country lanes, our already overloaded and inadequate sewage treatment works and the crumbling infrastructure – and the increased flooding risk. Also, please remember that we are the only main settlement in Waverley without a railway station.

Despite all this, more and more new planning applications are regularly being received.

Just a few days ago we heard that Dunsfold Park is virtually assured of being given approval for 2,600 new houses – and that is just the beginning! Just think of all those extra cars entering and using the A281.

We have heard credible accounts of a developer acquiring “options to buy” large tracts of land down Knowle Lane – is the idea for Cranleigh and Dunsfold to merge? Are we to become another Crawley?

Or does the Waverley Web dare to suggest … Crandun-for!

Cranleigh Civic Society needs YOUR support so please visit our website – www.cranleighsociety.orgFacebook and Twitter links and join our membership. We are working hard on YOUR behalf to protect our very special village, its environment, and wildlife.

Tell us what you want, what you really really want Cranleigh?

Frank talking on behalf of the people of Cranleigh as more bulldozers head towards Waverley’s NEW TOWN.

As if these developers give a tuppeny duck what the residents of Cranleigh want –  what they really, really want!

Because from what we hear over here in Farnham, Cranleigh people really, want is some peace and respite from HGV’s thundering through their once peaceful village, and the unrelenting onward march of developers through their streets. Who are they providing homes for? The locals? No homes to satisfy the housing needs of the Woking Wimbledon and Wandsworth Wanderers!

As for the low-cost homes, for village people?

We here at the WW are totally discombobulated!

Low cost for whom exactly? No doubt the very same Cranleigh people that moved into Sirus Place in Parsonage Road, most of whom are from outside the new town! Pull the other one – it’s got cement on it! Three four and five-bed low-cost homes!

And… where did the village benefactor Lettuce and his friend Leafy (aka Vrijland and Leahy) Go? Well you know where don’t you Cranleigh residents? Laughing all the way to the nearest bank! Well, that is if there’s one open?

We notice that now the West Cranleigh Nurseries 265-home development in Elmbridge/Alfold Road has been re-named – Knowle Park. No doubt that sounds slightly more grand than mentioning that it is adjacent to a Poo Factory and to floodplains? No doubt those flooded plains will be a little further away now Lettuce and Leafy have illegally dredged the Cranleigh Waters, affected flooding further downstream, and got clean away with it?

No surprise there then for the Tory Party donors!

KnowlePark1

KnowlePark2.jpeg

letter

Sorry, Ms. Faithfull. The days you and Mr. Swinnerton cherished have long gone.

 

Berkeley Bunnies – when you are in hole – stop digging?

‘More Barratt’s than Berkeley’s’  was how Waverley councillors described the detailed design for the first phase of 55 executive homes on part of Cranleigh’s once green and pleasant land. So they refused its application and told the national house builder, with a reputation for providing quality homes, to go ‘back to the drawing board.’

Despite the planning ‘experts’ at ‘Your Waverley’ supporting the design of the scheme, councillors from around the borough backed the locals who   claimed the development would do ‘nothing’ to enhance the character of Cranleigh – as the design and layout was ‘mediocre’ and ‘unimaginative’ and the  two-three storey sentinel blocks (which the developer had wanted to be gated,) facing onto a rural lane, was out of character – and more suited to Walton and Weybridge.

This was to have been the first phase of 425 homes to be built on land behind Stocklund Square with access off Knowle Lane. Granted by a Government Inspector following  an appeal.

Despite all their shoving, cajoling,  pushing and prodding, the ‘experts’ were unable to lead councillors by the nose  – and the scheme was rejected. Weeks earlier Berkeleys was also told it couldn’t take down ancient woodland – despite Liz The Biz Simms, ‘YW’ head honcho explaining a while back it could always be, re-planted. Ugh!

We, and probably you, would like to know –

Who is actually running the planning function at ‘YW’ – is it Gone to Potts? The Executive? The Planning Officers? Or is it the democratically elected members?

Because if it’s all the former, then why is taxpayers money being wasted on all those allowances , special responsibility payments, travelling expenses and pensions that 58 councillors are paid, when they could be done away with? 

From now on officers can grant up to 25 dwellings without reference to the planning committees! 

So now, a company that once hoped to be accepted in Cranleigh New Town, has upset the locals and instead of listening to all the cogent and reasonable arguments from the locals, and doing a small re-design, they are spending lots of dosh on lawyers and QC’s just to spite the taxpayer by appealing…. 

AGAIN!

Remember! The company has already done this once. The original application or 425 homes was refused by ‘YW’ – not its officers of course,  and allowed at appeal. The Inspector, at that time, allowed five storey homes on the site!!!  Less like Cranleigh more like Canary Wharf!

Why – have they decided to Appeal! Quite simply….Because they can!

It just shows how much profit they make that they can afford to do this on a matter of pique. I suppose as their CEO awarded himself a bonus of £23 million last year and only contributes a small sum of £3 million towards infrastructure he can afford to do it.
Of course if you look at it from his point of view, Berkeleys were led to believe by the WBC planners that all would be well and it would be plain sailing through the planning process, so you can imagine his frustration.  
The design was challenged on two main points – the 5 houses fronting Knowle Lane (a rural lane) were effectively 3 stories high, and not in keeping with Cranleigh whose vast majority of houses are only 2 stories high. Secondly the design was trying to make it look like a gated community. But as one councillor – Brian Freestone, told the Joint Planning Committee, ‘we welcome the new residents into Cranleigh, but how can we do that if they feel elite and cut off from us? This argument and others won the day.
If Berkeleys had engaged with Cranleigh Parish Council, in open forum rather than behind closed doors with ‘YW, all this could probably have been avoided.
Berkeley’s attempt to throw its  toys out of the pram is a flagrant waste of money and will not be approved by its shareholders. Even more damaging is the cost to cash-strapped WBC and therefore us the taxpayer.