Not Tonight Josephine – but Wednesday – Waverley Planners – will view the detailed drawings and Reserved Matters – concerning the first phase (55) of the Berkeley Bunnies new 425 home burrow – on the former Bonham Trust Land behind Stocklund Square in Cranleigh.
The mainly two storey dwellings will be three, four and five bed homes with access onto Knowle Lane.
Along with all the other developers in Waverley, they have convinced officers, and members alike, that the two and a half storey homes are just that. Well – just go and view other Crest Nicholson/Berkeley developments and see what you think. They are three storey houses in everything but name.
As you will see there is a very strong presence from Councillors representing Cranleigh!
Here’s what the parish council – the local watchdog – has to say, will anyone take one blind bit of notice… here come the diggers!
Strong concerns over the movement of construction traffic on Knowle Lane.
The dwellings are higher than those planned forAmlets Lane and the pitched roofs are considered to be too steep and should be reduced.
The proposed footpath is inadequate for pedestrians as there is only adequate space for one person.
This is a wetspot, highlighting flash flooding in the area at the carnival in 2016.
The roads are too narrow and should be made wider to support passing traffic.
The proposed garages would obstruct the highway, causing a lack of space for access.
Object to the ornamental entrance gate as the site must be inclusive, not exclusive. This also includes the brick wall which would create a separation and social exclusion from Cranleigh.
The SuDS scheme is not yet agreed and would need to be heavily relied upon.
Members would like a CEMP to be made a condition of this application.Additional response:
– Gate should be removed from the entrance
– Estate roads are too narrow, and cars will parkalong them restricting access for emergencyvehicles and refuse collection lorries.
– Plots 4, 51, 52 and 53 are 45% higher thanneighbouring properties. The two storey houses have been increased to make the three storey houses look less intrusive.
– Plots 4 and 51 are within a metre of the pavement, making them appear as gateways which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the lane as appears urban.
– Plots 4, 51, 52 and 53 are located opposite Snoxhall Fields ASVI and would be harmful as too bulky and large.
It is contrary to the Cranleigh Design Statement.
and.. last but not least.. the transport Statement refers to a roundabout being built to service a new private nursing home (formerly intended to be a replacement hospital) but its permission has now lapsed, so the developer should not rely upon this roundabout.
Needless to say – there is no objection from the county highway authority or the flood authority. Surprise, surprise!
No surprise there then… The Government Inspector Mr Jonathan Bore the man chosen to EXAMINE – “Your Waverley’s” Local Plan (it isn’t daft any more because it has now been voted through by councillors – though many of you may believe it is still Daft – has more than just a few QUESTIONS … and he wants them ANSWERED!
AND… when they have answered all these set out on the link below …there are more Questions where these came from! Many more…
Poor Old Sick as a… – “Graham Parrot” “Your Waverley’s planning officer, who is still smarting from the drubbing he was given last time the Local Plan was given a public airing, will be busy!
The first and last paragraphs are key, along with the cultural desert at para 8, and the fact that he doesn’t once mention the main constraint (Habitats). In other words… A Bore hole!
Waverley has fallen at the first fence because the Inspector immediately picked up up on “Your Waverley”s”bizarre decision to reduce affordable housing to 30%. And he wants to know WHY?
We think we know why ? Because Developers don’t want to build affordable homes for rent. Why? Because once built the tenants can, in future, purchase them under the Right to Buy legislation – with a 27% discount – and then they become “market housing.” This results in the need to build even more….”subsidised” housing to replace those sold and … on and on it goes … with more countryside biting the dust!
Yes… indeed why not build all over sports pitches – memorial sports grounds, even Memorial community conservation gardens – after all isn’t that just what “Your Waverley” wants? So don’t be so negative Gone-to-Potts – Leader of “Your Waverley.”Get the CPO – Liz the Biz Sims to come up with some alternative wording like the good Inspector says in the paragraph above!
Yes! WBC Just what are those “exceptional circumstances” that justify altering the Green Belt?
So get on with it – it is quite obvious you need to do a great deal more work on The Green Belt – after all you had set aside £1m of the taxpayers’ money for your little foray into Cranleigh’s Green Belt land to build an Industrial Estate?
So now you must come up with the “Exceptional Circumstances” that permit the council’s ability to do this – haven’t you? Oops – no of course you don’t now do you – thanks to the Waverley Web unveiling your little secret to the good people over there in Cranleigh that little cunning plan has been ditched, hasn’t it!!
Good old Waverley councillors – those you entrusted with your vote so they could speak on your behalf? Well…
… most of them were nowhere to be seen, or heard when “Your Waverley’s” Community Overview & Scrutiny committee sat to “scrutinise” the last knockings of the Local Plan before it is examined by a Government Inspector.
“Couldn’t tear yourself away from “I’m a Celebrity Get me Out of Here” or the football to debate a vital document that dictates the borough’s future development?”
But worry not! Councillors: Tom Martin; Stephen Hill; David Hunter; Simon Thornton; Denise Le Gal (too busy cooking up property deals?) Peter Martin; Sam Pritchard; Ross Welland; Liz Wheatley; Pat Frost; Bob Upton et al! Because at least some of your mates don’t view the electorate as mere “voting fodder so they turned out to represent us!
Enough of our grumbling:
Thankfully – planning experts were out in force-led by Chief Officer “Liz The Biz “Sims who said the Plan had been – “years in the making – and there had been “robust” consultation with everyone – the public, stakeholders etc” She warned it was “critical” that the tight timetable set by Government for early 2017 was kept, and tonight, (Monday’s meeting ) was an important part of the final process . “We are confident we can submit the plan to meet the deadline and stressed the very real difficulties experienced by the council of not having an adopted Local Plan or a five-year land supply.”
If you don’t get the Local Plan at the finishing post – maybe the Government will do it for you?
Onto the business – all two plus hours of it – wrapped up into a nutshell:
Graham of “sick as a” Parrot fame – who is still reeling from the drubbing he received at the Inspector’s hands at the last Plan’s failure, outlined the challenges facing the borough and highlighted some of the issues raised by objectors – including The Save Our Waverley Group. ( Now re-named by many as the “Save Our Little Bit of Waverley Group and S** the rest of the Borough.”
and.. as he outlined some of the comments even he raised his eyebrows when suggestions included:
Make Dunsfold Aerodrome into a – Conservation Area – or a Borough Heritage asset. (or even perhaps a National Monument.)
That even with the figure of 519 homes per year – there would be an unmet need.
The Plan relied too heavily upon Dunsfold Airfield,with some arguing it was not a Brownfield site others arguing that it was and there should be many more than the 2,600 identified – perhaps even 6,000/8,000
Too much housing was concentrated in the East of the borough – and in particular in Cranleigh, which lacked infrastructure.
Some believed the villages needed more housing, some less.
Infrasture/flooding and drainage issues were of concern in the East.
Transport, air quality and habitat issues (Thames Basin Heath and Wealden Heath issues in Farnham and beyond.
The needs of Gipsies was unmet.
Insufficient employment sites were identified.
Green Belt issues were identified- around Godalming/Elstead and South Farnham.
The Strategic gaps between towns/settlements had been identified – but it was suggested more should be included in South Farnham/Rowledge and Dockenfield.
Then Councillors who did turn up had their say very ably led by the committee/Council’s new boy – Councillor Jerry Hyman (Farnham Residents’) and did we detect a sneaking admiration for the way he handled a very complex and lengthy meeting – no of course not – we couldn’t have could we – silly us!
Predictably By-Pass Byham and All at Seaborne – blamed all Bramley’s traffic problems including the increase in HGV’s at Dunsfold’s door. Even the bits that fell off lorries onto the heads of pedestrians? Has anyone told them that THEY gave permission for Cranleigh Brick and Tile to run 700 hundred of 50 tonners every day for the next 5 + years down the A281! All with Surrey highways’ blessing. And… didn’t the Bramley Parish Council trouser a big fat cheque for allowing it. Hypocrisy personified – we’d call it!
It was Shamley Green’s very own Mike “Rubber” Band who warned officers they better get the Plan right this time because 11 Parish Councils all led by the POW group now renamed POLBOW, were going to CHALLENGE THEM BIG TIME!
and… that isn’t a threat its a PROMISE!
Whist he completely ignored the fact that all the traffic from all the new Cranleigh developments – supported by Waverley’s various planning committee’s – will be travelling through … yes… you guessed Shamley Green and Wonersh. (By the way where was the Wonersh Sleepy Jean- Councillor Goodridge? – Tucked up in bed with a nightcap perhaps…?”
Councillor John Gray said he was “disappointed” there was no mention of “alternative site allocations” for the areas around Dunsfold/Alfold and Cranleigh.
Wake up Dummy – there are planning applications from the wannabe’s for over 1,000 homes in total – don’t you read the planning and Appeal lists?
Portfolio Holder – Brian Adams stressed “all sites” had been assessed – infrastructure problems affected many of them (e.g. sewage/drainage/flooding problems.) And… it was explained The figure for affordable homes had been dropped from 40% to 30% because housing associations didn’t want to build homes for rent, (due to the 1% cut in rents) and shared ownership properties. Stressing only open market properties es provided the funds needed to provide – vital Infrastructure.
Another warning: “We’ll see about that when the Plan is Examined by the Inspector – because it WILL BE CHALLENGED! said Dunsfold’s Councillor Gray who just supported a development in Dunsfold village for 43 homes at Nugent Close with sewage pumping into…. guess where CRANLEIGH!
As there is only so much a reader can handle – suffice to say:
The document now passes to the EXECUTIVE and FULL Council for the final countdown November 29th.
But before we sign off, we must mention a comment regarding Infrastructure: made by the Chairman: Jerry Hyman”
He said soto voce (but we could all hear it on the webcast) “It appears to me that all the Infrastructure in the borough is being provided by Dunsfold Park!
Whilst our followers have been out there buying presents, stuffing, basting and doing all things Christmas and New Year the army of developers eager to build all over Waverley have been knock’a’knock knocking on heavens door . Or… the answer to all their prayers – The Government’s door.
“Please, please let us build all over the green fields in the Borough of Waverley Mr Prime Minister”
Yes, the good, the bad and the downright ugly have been tripping up to No 10 Downing Street to see Government Ministers to have a good old gripe about “Our Waverley.” Moaning about delays preparing the Daft Local Plan; Delays on Appeals; delays in validating and registering planning applications; delays in considering planning applications; delays in responding to applicants; delays in dealing with conditions attached to planning applications once granted …delays…delays..delays and …yep you guessed delays!
Even though the poor old Big D’s are filling in zillions of forms, reports, and surveys on everything from bats to bees, newts to nesting sites; not forgetting flooding zones, good old Waverley, has brought in a SUDS requirement, that is a pro forma unique to Waverley. No it has nothing to do with washing powder – it is Sustainable Urban Drainage System – a topographical survey that now has to accompany applications. Surrey County Council is now the strategic drainage authority.
By the way, that’s who we blame from now on when our new homes flood!” It would appear the Environment Agency has washed its hands of it!
Has the Government been listening? You bet it has, reeling off another update to planning guidance to get those concert mixers churning.
Deemed Discharge of Planning Condition The Government has introduced the principle of deemed discharge into the Town and County Planning Act 1990 (by way of the Infrastructure Act 2015) and consolidated and reissued the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 (the “DMPO 2015”) to provide the detail on how deemed discharge works in practice. The new legislation came into effect on 15 April 2015. The new deemed discharge provisions acknowledge and seek to address unnecessary delays caused by the discharge of planning conditions that can prevent developments with planning permission from commencing. Following a consultation last year the Government considered that new measures should be introduced to give greater certainty for all parties around when decisions could be expected.
WW believes This is an insult to our decent representatives at WBC.
A Local Planning Authority (“LPA”) is required to determine an application for approval of a condition within 8 weeks following receipt of the application (or such other longer period as may be agreed between the applicant and the LPA in writing). If an LPA fails to determine within 8 weeks or the agreed period a right of appeal accrues. In order to provide the required information on surface water drainage from the proposed development the attached pro-forma must be completed in full and be submitted with any planning application which seeks permission for ‘major’ development (unique to WBC). The application for planning permission will not be validated until this pro-forma is completed. This information contained in this form will be used by Surrey Council in its role as Lead Local Flood Authority and ‘statutory consultee’ on SuDs for all ‘major’ planning applications.
Appeals against Waverley decisions now with the Government are taking 18 months. Many applications are taking 8 weeks just to be registered – and there are more public inquiries planned than WW can count. All this just when Chief Planning Officer Matthew Evans has resigned and we hear is hopping across the County boundary into Hampshire to help them with their Local Plan. Oh dear!
Procedure Deemed Discharge at a Glance:
1. Submit an application in writing to the LPA for any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition attached to a planning permission with the requisite supporting information. 2. Serve a ‘deemed discharge notice’ on the LPA no sooner than 6 weeks after the application to discharge the condition is made. 3. Deemed discharge takes effect if the LPA has not notified the applicant of its decision within 14 days of receiving the deemed discharge notice.
