!

CRANLEIGH PARISH COUNCIL

Draft Responses to the Pre-Submission Waverley Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites

Cranleigh Parish Council is delighted to see progress on the Waverley Local Plan as it is considered that planning of the Borough and Cranleigh in particular should be genuinely plan-led so that it will be possible to move away from the current appeal-led system.

Having reviewed the Pre-Submission Waverley Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites and accompanying evidence, the following commentary sets out the support for, and objections to, relevant policies and paragraphs in the order that they are presented in the Local Plan. The Parish Council arranged an open evening on 15 September 2016 in Cranleigh for residents to learn more about, and comment on, the Waverley Local Plan Part 1 pre-submission. Whilst residents are able to make their comments independently on the Local Plan, the Parish Council’s comments are informed by the comments made at the open evening (Appendix 3). Object to Para 3.2 Vision for Waverley in 2032; Local Plan Objective 2; Paragraph 5.15 and Policy SP2: Spatial Strategy

Policy SP2: Spatial Strategy is fundamental to the distribution of development within the borough but is not considered sound as it is not justified.

The policy is not justified as it is not based on up-to-date evidence and does not represent the most appropriate strategy in terms of the focus of development at Cranleigh.

The Local Plan (Para 5.16) states that the approach to development within the villages is derived from a combination of factors, namely:

• the Waverley Settlement Hierarchy; • the landscape and other constraints that apply; and • the potential availability of sites.

The Waverley Settlement Hierarchy Factual Update 2012 has been used to determine the level of development at existing settlements.

This draft hierarchy refers to (Para 1.5):

• national and regional policy; • community facilities and services; • accessibility to higher order centres; • ability to accommodate new development whilst limiting the environmental impact.

The evidence has not been updated to take the following into consideration:

• services or employment opportunities; • the planning context set by the emerging Local Plan; and • the correct application of the criteria used.

In terms of services, the absence of a state sector sixth form provision in Cranleigh is a major gap in the social infrastructure of the village. The nearest state sixth form college is at Godalming College some 9 miles away with poor public transport options available to students. The Sustainability Appraisal seeks to ensure access to education and skills development opportunities (Para 10.4) and this makes significant development at Cranleigh less sustainable than other settlements at the top of the hierarchy.

In terms of employment opportunities, employment land is one of the determining criteria which allowed Cranleigh to be ranked alongside the larger settlements in the borough although it appears that this continues to be based on out of date and factually incorrect information. The Settlement Hierarchy Factual Update 2012 was based on the 2009 Employment Land Review (ELR) which is out of date for Local Plan purposes. The 2009 ELR stated that Cranleigh had 32.4ha of employment land (17% of total assessed land within the borough) and this has been confirmed by Waverley Planning Department as being the figure used as an evidence base for the analysis in the Local Plan. This relied on a number of sites with poor prospects for employment; sites such as Swallow Tiles (0.9ha) (now redeveloped for housing), Cranleigh Brickworks (20ha) (full planning application for residential use approved and under development) and Hewitt’s Industrial Estate (3 ha) (subject to an appeal for residential use October 12th 2016); all of which may be viewed as no longer available as viable areas for employment. Please see Appendix 1 for background information. These areas were still included in the ELR review of August 2014, together with other employment locations which have been put forward in the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan “Call for Sites” for potential housing development, some of which are no longer at full capacity. It would appear that far more employment opportunities and employment sites are being reported than actually exist. The Sustainability Appraisal states that there is a need to deliver housing in proximity to employment growth areas and avoid traffic congestion (Para. 10.5.1).

Taking into account a more accurate and up-to-date amount of employment land in Cranleigh (Appendix 1) this should be reported as approximately 7ha out of a total for the borough of 206ha, which is 3.4% of the borough’s total employment land should Hewitt’s Industrial Estate be allowed on appeal in October 2016 and 4.9% should this application be refused. The decline in employment opportunities in Cranleigh makes the proposed quantum of housing development unsustainable and inappropriate for the village.

In terms of the planning context set by the emerging Local Plan with which the distribution of development must be consistent, the Settlement Hierarchy Factual Update 2012 states that Cranleigh has no Green Belt or AONB constraints. In fact the Borough Council’s own Green Belt Review, 2014, confirms that land to the north and west of Cranleigh continues to perform Green Belt functions. It also recommends that further land between Cranleigh and the existing Green Belt land be designated as Green Belt and the Pre-Submission Waverley Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites itself now proposes that further Green Belt be designated to the north of the village. Similarly, the Surrey Hills AONB extends to the north and west of the village and the context of the AONB and its setting should not be ignored as currently in the settlement hierarchy analysis. The Sustainability Appraisal states that the preferred distribution strategy would have limited impacts on conserving and enhancing distinctive landscapes provided sites were selected in line with the findings of the Waverley Landscape Study (2014) (Para 10.8.1). As some of the sites in Cranleigh are located in landscape of high value and sensitivity this is not the case and the proposed level of development is unsustainable and inappropriate.

Criteria taken into account in determining the settlement hierarchy (and therefore the distribution of development) have not been correctly applied.

Two of the criteria referred to as helping to determine the hierarchy of settlements are the size and form of a settlement. In relation to population, even though the 2001 Census is used, it is clear that Cranleigh (excluding Rowly) with a population of 10,606 (now approximately 11,400) is of a completely different size to Farnham (population 37,055) and Godalming (population 21,103). Nevertheless, the Local Plan groups the much smaller sized settlement of Cranleigh with Farnham and Godalming at the top of the hierarchy. In relation to form, the Waverley Settlement Hierarchy Factual Update 2012 states that a village which has a linear form with little depth beyond the road frontage is unlikely to be suitable for any development other than infilling of small gaps in the built up frontage (Para 4.22) whereas a compact settlement of some size and depth extending beyond road frontages may be able to accommodate some level of further development without harming its character or the openness of the surrounding countryside. The settlement of Cranleigh encompasses both forms of development: the linear High Street to the Common with little built-depth beyond the road frontage representing the historic part of the village and the more compact form of the more modern estates dating from the 1960’s and 1970’s, to the east. The Parish Council concurs that the historic linear pattern of development is unlikely to be suitable for any significant development other than infilling of small gaps in the built-up frontage and this should put a restriction on development in this part of the village. A further criterion referred to as helping to determine the hierarchy of settlements is transport links.

• Cranleigh is some nine miles from Guildford mainline station and is the only one of the defined ‘main settlements’ that has no train station. • The sustainability appraisal mentions that Cranleigh has a good bus service, and this is based on the village being served by 4 routes: 63, 53, 42 and 24. At no point is there one pick-up every 15 minutes. The 53 and 63 provide a half-hour service throughout most of the day, with the most direct links. The 24 and 42 are intermittent and infrequent, with one taking an hour to get to Guildford. The service stops at 22:45 with a reduced service on Sunday, with no service at all to Ewhurst. For an 11,000 plus community by any definition this is not a good service. • Most of the surrounding villages are reached via narrow, congested B roads and other poor quality and narrow lanes.

The proposed 1,520 dwellings would lead to a further 2,400 cars on the road (applying the average 1.58 cars per dwelling (2011 Census in Surrey Waverley Borough). In particular, there is a need to commute to work, access a secondary school and other higher-order facilities - health, shopping and leisure. The quantum of housing development proposed at Cranleigh would not reduce the reliance on journeys by car (as sought by the Sustainability Appraisal Para 10.10). Transport links alone make Cranleigh far less sustainable than the other three settlements at the top of the hierarchy.

In relation to other infrastructure provision, the Parish Council is extremely concerned about the adequacy of the sewage treatment works and water supply/quality (see comments on Policy ICS1: Infrastructure and Community Facilities).

In summary, Cranleigh should not be categorised with Farnham and Godalming within the hierarchy as:

• the Waverley Settlement Hierarchy Factual Update, 2012 is clearly not up-to-date and is flawed; • the village is of a significantly smaller scale than the other settlements; • the village is constrained by designated and proposed Green Belt; the setting of the AONB; areas of local landscape value and a historic linear form and heritage; • infrastructure provision.

The result of this spatial strategy is that Cranleigh is allocated a disproportionately high number of new dwellings for the size and constraints operating at the village. The Waverley Settlement Hierarchy Factual Update 2012 ranks Cranleigh fourth in the borough taking into account the facilities available, transport links, the size of the village (even omitting Green Belt and AONB and local landscape constraints). However, the village is allocated the second highest number of dwellings to be attached to an existing settlement. Assuming an average occupancy of 2.4 persons per dwelling, the proposed 1,520 dwellings would represent a population increase of some 3,650 people (a growth rate of 33%) compared with 15% at Farnham and Godalming and 12% at Haslemere.

Change(s) considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound

Amend the spatial strategy to separate Cranleigh from Farnham and Godalming and recognise its role as a smaller contributor to meeting the housing needs of the borough than the much larger settlements with a wider range of higher-order facilities and sustainable transport alternatives. Object to Policy ALH1: The Amount and Location of Housing

The policy is not justified as it is not based on up-to-date evidence and does not represent the most appropriate strategy in terms of the focus of development at Cranleigh.

The Waverley Settlement Hierarchy Factual Update 2012 has been used to determine an appropriate level of development at settlements.

This draft hierarchy refers to (Para 1.5):

• national and regional policy • community facilities and services • accessibility to higher order centres • ability to accommodate new development whilst limiting the environmental impact.

The evidence does not fully take into consideration:

• services or employment opportunities • the planning context set by the emerging Local Plan • the correct application of the criteria used.

The Local Plan (Para 5.16) states that the approach to development within the villages is derived from a combination of factors, namely:

• the Waverley Settlement Hierarchy • the landscape and other constraints that apply • the potential availability of sites.

Cranleigh should not be categorised with Farnham and Godalming within the hierarchy as:

• the Waverley Settlement Hierarchy Factual Update, 2012 is clearly not up-to-date and is flawed; • it is of a significantly smaller scale than the other settlements; • it is constrained by designated and proposed Green Belt; the setting of the AONB; areas of local landscape value and the historic linear form and heritage; • infrastructure provision.

The result of this spatial strategy is that Cranleigh is allocated a disproportionately high number of new dwellings (1,520) for the size and constraints operating at the village. The Waverley Settlement Hierarchy Factual Update 2012 ranks Cranleigh fourth in the borough taking into account the facilities available, transport links, the size of the village (even omitting Green Belt and AONB and local landscape constraints). However, the village is allocated the second highest number of dwellings attached to an existing settlement.

The Parish Council supports the need for additional housing in Cranleigh. However, planning consent has already been granted for 793 dwellings (see Appendix 2). Additional SHLAA sites and sites identified via the Neighbourhood Plan; potential housing sites derived from outmoded or underused employment sites and other small scale windfall sites may also add to housing provision in the village.

The Parish Council are strongly of the view that the number of new dwellings to be accommodated at Cranleigh (including homes permitted and built since April 2013 and anticipated windfall development) should be substantially less than 1,520 dwellings. Change(s) considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound

Amend the spatial strategy to separate Cranleigh from Farnham and Godalming and recognise its role as a smaller contributor to meeting the housing needs of the borough than the much larger settlements with a wider range of higher-order facilities and sustainable transport options.

Substantially reduce the number of dwellings to be accommodated at Cranleigh.

Object to Table 6.1 – Potential Housing Land Supply (as at April 2016)

Table 6.1 Row H sets out the amount of housing from suitable LAA sites, to deliver residue of 6,925 homes allocated to parishes in Policy ALH1. The source of this housing supply is the SHLAA 2016, which details the various sources of supply that are expected to contribute to the delivery of the required housing.

The SHLAA 2016, states (Para 1.2) that the LAA identifies a future supply of land which is suitable, available and achievable for housing and other uses over the plan period covered by the Local Plan and provides evidence to support Table 6.1. It is also intended to provide evidence for Part 2 of the Local Plan, which will allocate non-strategic sites and for neighbourhood plans produced by town and parish councils in Waverley.

It is recognised that the LAA does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for development, but the inclusion of sites as suitable within the LAA would appear to predetermine the principle of development either as an allocation of the site in a Local Plan Part 2 or in determining a planning application or appeal. The latter is of particular relevance in a borough where a 5-year housing land supply is disputed.

The NPPG states that developers, landowners, promoters, local communities, businesses, town and parish councils and others should be involved in plan preparation, including evidence on land availability. As noted in the Consultation Statement, 2016, there was no consultation between council officers and the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Cranleigh Parish Council during May and June 2014 (Para 3.5). The Borough Council has decided to proceed straight to a Regulation 19 Local Plan with no direct consultation with Cranleigh Parish Council or the residents of Cranleigh regarding the sites proposed in the Local Plan. The NPPF states that there should be early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made (Para 155). The LAA contains sites considered to be suitable by the Borough Council which the Parish Council considers unsuitable.

In the case of Cranleigh, Table 6.1 Row H is made up of sites which do not comply with the NPPF and for that reason are not suitable. The Table and consequently the housing land supply for Cranleigh as set out is therefore unsound. Sites classified as suitable in SHLAA:

49 - 53 Horsham Road (LAA Site 13)

0.44ha Proposed (or estimated) Yield 20 dwellings 45dph The existing specialist housing on this site serves a unique function in the village and the net increase in the number of residential units from this yield would be zero. Were development to take place on this site this should be made conditional on there being a suitable alternative provision elsewhere within the village.

Land at St Nicolas C of E School & Cranleigh Primary School, Parsonage Road (LAA Site 383)

1.38ha Proposed (or estimated) Yield 67 dwellings 50dph Development will need to take into account the risk of flooding that may occur in any part of the site that is identified as being within Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b (functional flood plain). The Environment Agency recently published higher climate change allowances which may result in an in-principle objection to this site given the flooding issues.

Elmbridge Road, Cranleigh (LAA Site 874)

3.7ha Proposed (or estimated) Yield 60 dwellings 16dph The Green Belt Review recommends an extension to the Green Belt bringing it to north of the B2130, with this site remaining outside of the proposed Green Belt extension. Development will need to take into account the risk of flooding that may occur in any part of the site that is identified as being within Flood Zones 2, 3a and 3b (functional flood plain). The Environment Agency in conjunction with the Government recently published higher climate change allowances which may result in an in principle objection to this site given the flooding issues.

Change(s) considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound

Review sites Land at St Nicolas C of E School; Parsonage Road (two separate sites allocated under ref 383)) (LAA Site 383) and Elmbridge Road, Cranleigh (LAA Site 874) to take into account recently published higher climate change allowances and, where necessary, reduce the capacity of the sites and the number of dwellings allocated to Cranleigh.

Object to Policy ICS1: Infrastructure and Community Facilities

Policy ICS1 is not sound as it is not positively prepared in seeking to meet objectively assessed infrastructure requirements.

The Local Plan is supported by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (‘IDP’) which identifies the physical, social and green infrastructure needed to enable the amount of development proposed for the area.

The Parish Council having studied the S106 agreements for the already granted 793 new dwellings in Cranleigh of adequate contributions to fund and deliver the following list of infrastructure projects. The IDP lists infrastructure improvements expected to be delivered over the plan period at Cranleigh:

• Elmbridge Road/Wey and Arun Canal Bridge, by 2032 • Traffic Management Scheme between Cranleigh and Shere on Barhatch Lane and Hound House Road by 2032 • Alfold Road adjacent to Little Mead Industrial Estate: widen road bridge and priority management by 2032 • Cranleigh High Street: Environmental improvements by 2032 • Bridge over Downslink, Cranleigh: new bridge or amendments to existing traffic signals by 2032 • Study to review on and off-street car parking in the village centre by 2032 • Public Bridleway between Elmbridge Road and Cranleigh Leisure Centre: Lighting Scheme by 2032 • Public Footpath 393 between Elmbridge Village and Knowle Lane: surface and drainage improvements by 2032 • Public Bridleway 350: surface and drainage improvements by 2032 • Off-carriageway cycle/pedestrian link between Cranleigh and Ewhurst 2016-2020 • Cranleigh Bus Service Enhancement Scheme over plan period • Upgrade bus stop facilities to include real time passenger information 2016-202 • New Cranleigh Primary School including additional 1.5 forms entry by 2032 • 1-2 additional forms entry for Secondary School to be accommodated at Glebelands School by 2032 • Cranleigh Leisure Centre: replace outdoor tennis courts with indoor 4 court sports hall by 2032 • Cranleigh Leisure Centre: extension to provide indoor cycling studio by 2032 • Cranleigh Leisure Centre: poolside upgrade to glazing, tiling and spectator seating by 2032

Potential longer term alternative to above Cranleigh Leisure Centre improvements:

• Cranleigh Leisure Centre: new build leisure centre with sports hall to replace existing leisure centre • Rowly’s Centre for the Community: refurbishment of Rowland House Lounge area and existing centre by 2032 • Multi-agency centre in Village Way to accommodate Parish Council, CAB, youth centre, police and rooms for public hire by 2032 • Cranleigh Village Hospital by 2032

The Parish Council has not been consulted on these initiatives and is unaware of the assessed need for these, with the exception of ongoing discussions between Cranleigh Village Hospital and the Royal Surrey County Hospital. The IDP omits a key project identified by the Parish Council, and highlighted in Waverley Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal Page 132, of an upgraded sewage treatment facility as a matter of urgent priority.

Cranleigh Sewage Treatment Works (STW) was opened in July 1967 to serve between 10,000 and 15,000 residents in Cranleigh, Hascombe, Dunsfold, Rowly, Ewhurst and Ewhurst Green. Taking housing completions into account since 2011, the 15,000 has now been exceeded.

On 8th May 2016, representatives from Cranleigh Civic Society, Cranleigh Parish Council and Waverley Borough Council met with Thames Water and the Environment Agency at Cranleigh STW, which was being expanded from 6 filter beds to 8, a 30% increase in filtration capacity, to improve resilience (this was to deal with the current level - not to accommodate new housing) at the SWT as ongoing capacity issues had been highlighted. There has been an ongoing dialogue with Waverley regarding the need for planning permission for this work, particularly taking into account odour issues at the plant. There is thus a need to recognise the requirement for an extension to Cranleigh Sewage Treatment Works in the IDP. Representatives of the Parish Council are scheduled to meet with the Secretary of State for the Environment in October 2016 to discuss the community’s significant concerns about water quality in the Cranleigh area.

The Parish Council would like consideration to be given to an upgrade and improvement works to existing facilities at Snoxhall Fields, Snoxhall Pavilion and the Village Hall.

Should Surrey County Council develop the Junior School and the C of E Infants School and build a new school at Glebelands Secondary School site, it is unlikely that open space requirements will be met as Glebelands has a community use agreement and is essential to meet local need.

Change(s) considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound

Add the need for Extension to Cranleigh Sewage Treatment Works.

Add requirement for sports pitches as well as sports pavilions.

Reword Policy ICS1 to make reference to meeting the infrastructure requirements in made Neighbourhood Plans.

Support Policy AHN3: Housing Types and Size

Support Policy AHN3 as sound as it requires new housing to make provision for an appropriate range of different types and sizes of housing to meet the needs of the community, reflecting the most up-to-date evidence in the West Surrey Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) as this would help provide accommodation for which there is a need in the village.

Object Policy EE2: Protecting Existing Employment Sites

The Parish Council considers Policy EE2 unsound for Cranleigh as it is not justified as the most appropriate strategy based on robust up-to-date evidence.

The policy seeks to protect existing employment sites against alternative uses unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment use.

The employment land recorded in the Employment Land Review (ELR), 2014 contains a number of sites such as Hewitt’s Industrial Estate which may have more suitable alternative use under NPPF guidance. Some employment sites which are no longer at full capacity have been put forward in the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan “Call for Sites” for potential housing development.

Change(s) considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound

Amend Policy EE2 as follows: The Council will protect existing employment sites against alternative uses unless it can be clearly demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for employment use or it is allocated for an alternative use in a made Neighbourhood Plan. Existing employment sites include sites specifically identified by saved Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 Policies IC2 and IC3 as well as other existing employment sites within the B Use Classes. (proposed additional text shown in italics)

Support Para 11.31

Support the recognition of Cranleigh Design Statement 2008 (SPD) and Neighbourhood Plan as sound. The Cranleigh Design Statement was adopted by the Borough Council in July 2008 and contains guidelines for any new development within the parish. This paragraph also recognises that Cranleigh Parish Council is in the process of preparing a neighbourhood plan which may contain additional policies for its village centre.

Support Policy TCS1: Town Centres

Support the priority given to Town Centres and measures to improve Cranleigh village centre, including appropriate development, will be encouraged provided that this helps them to adapt and reinforce their role in meeting needs, act as the focus for a range of activities, including retailing, leisure, cultural, business and residential uses, and do not cause unacceptable levels of disturbance to the local community or damage the townscape character.

Object to Policy RE2: Green Belt

Support is given to designated addition Green Belt land to the north of Cranleigh between the Common and Rowly including Cranleigh School and land to the west of the B2128.

Object to the Borough Council omission of an adjoining area from Green Belt designation as unsound as the omissions are not justified by the evidence available.

The area abuts the north of Cranleigh village south east of Horseshoe Lane (shown as Area U on the map below).

!

The Parish Council is aware that outline planning permission has been granted for up to 125 dwellings, a community building and public parkland on part of Area U (WA/2014/1038). Nevertheless, the land remaining outside this application site performs all five purposes of the Green Belt and is recommended for inclusion in the Green Belt by the Waverley Borough Council Green Belt Review, 2014. Indeed, subject to the detailed layout and location of parkland to be approved as part of a detailed planning consent, this part of the development may also be an appropriate use within the Green Belt and it may be feasible for this area to be incorporated within the designated Green Belt. The Parish Council consider the approved development heightens the importance of designating the remaining part of Area U so that it may continue to fulfil the purposes of the Green Belt.

Analysis of how the land remaining outside this application site performs all five purposes of the Green Belt (NPPF Chapter 9):

1. Check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.

The proposed area beyond the site granted outline planning permission has a heightened role in limiting the sprawl of Cranleigh into countryside to the north of the village.

2. Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.

The proposed area beyond the site granted outline planning permission has a role in preventing Cranleigh merging with the neighbouring settlement of Rowly to the north.

3. Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

The proposed area beyond the site granted outline planning permission has an increased importance in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The land is generally open in character comprising agricultural fields in the north with scattered properties and playing fields in the south. The land separates the built up area of Cranleigh from the Surrey Hills AONB immediately to the north.

4. Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

Cranleigh is an historic village. The proposed designated area abuts, and forms part of the northern setting to, Cranleigh Conservation Area and is not affected by the site with outline planning permission.

5. Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Within Cranleigh there are opportunities for the regeneration of brownfield sites and other redevelopment and infill development. The presence of the Green Belt helps to focus on such opportunities and making the best use of previously developed land and sites in sustainable locations.

Opportunities to plan positively for beneficial use of Green Belt

Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation or to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity.

There are a number of public footpaths which traverse this area of countryside linking to the village and the opportunity to integrate public parkland on WA/2014/1038. There is an opportunity to provide continued access to the countryside and for biodiversity improvements.

Object to the Borough Council omission of an adjoining area from Green Belt designation as unsound as the omissions are not justified by the evidence available.

!

The area is located to the land west of Alfold Road to the A281 (shown as Area R on the map on above and identified in the Waverley Borough Council Green Belt review 2014).

Analysis of how the land remaining outside the application site performs all five purposes of the Green Belt:

1. Check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.

The proposed area has a role in limiting the sprawl of Cranleigh into countryside to the west of the village.

2. Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.

The proposed area has a role in preventing Cranleigh merging with the proposed new settlement at Dunsfold Airfield and expansion of the village of Alfold to form a ‘Strategic gap’.

3. Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

The advent of strategic development at Dunsfold Aerodrome gives area R increased importance in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The land is generally open in character comprising agricultural fields, including greenhouses and Elmbridge Retirement Village to the north, in addition to Nanhurst, originally part of Vachery Estate together with a few scattered houses, Mill farm and woodland areas, including areas of ancient woodland - part of the Woodland Priority Habitat Network and classed as having high spatial priority as sites of nature conservation importance (Magic Database). To the west the A281 forms a natural border for the proposed green belt designation. Cranleigh Waters runs centrally through the site flanked by a natural flood plain area, together with the Wey and Arun Canal (currently being restored). This land separates the built up area of Cranleigh from the Surrey Hills and abuts the green belt to the north, as well as being adjacent to the Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) to the west. It protects the character and setting of the village at the foot of the Surrey Hills and within the Weald, a low lying plain which stretches between the North and South Downs.

4. Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

Cranleigh is an historic village with both sides of the high street, and the open common to the west, part of the adopted Conservation Area. The proposed designated area would protect the rural setting and special character of the village, which is at risk of losing its unique identity without protection of this additional green belt.

5. Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Within Cranleigh there are further opportunities for the regeneration of brownfield sites and other redevelopment and infill development. The presence of the Green Belt helps to focus on such opportunities and making the best use of previously developed land and sites in more sustainable locations.

Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation or to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity.

There are a number of public footpaths which traverse this area providing access to the countryside and linking to the village. With the restoration of the Wey and Arun Canal through this protected area there would be many opportunities for people to enjoy this open rural landscape by foot, cycle or using the canal. By protecting the natural flood plain from further encroachment, this provides natural flood defences for Cranleigh, as well as protecting areas further downstream. It will also help to protect and provide opportunities to enhance the biodiversity of the area, including Cranleigh Waters.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Green Belt Review recommends an extension of the Green Belt to the north of Cranleigh village south east of Horseshoe Lane (shown as Area U on the map above) as well the establishment of a Green Belt ‘strategic gap’, land west of Alfold and the A281 (identified within land R on the map above). These areas continue to fulfil the purposes of the Green Belt and should be designated as Green Belt land (with the exception of land currently granted outline planning consent for residential development).

Change(s) considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound

Land to the north of Cranleigh village (shown as Area U on the map above) which lies outside the site granted outline planning permission for residential development and public parkland (WA/2014/1038) to be designated as Green Belt. Investigate the possibility of including the parkland within the outline site for designation as Green Belt land. Land to the west of Cranleigh village (shown as Area R on the map above) to be designated as Green Belt.

Object to Policy RE3: Landscape Character.

The Parish Council is concerned that local landscape designations based on up-to-date evidence are not included in the Local Plan which is therefore not justified or sound.

The Borough Council’s Landscape Character Review, 2014 assesses the landscape value and sensitivity of parcels of land at the edge of Cranleigh. From the map below, the Review assesses sites CL1A and CL6 as being of high landscape value and sensitivity with limited capacity for development.

Planning consent for residential development has been granted on appeal on a small part of Site CL1A comprising the access road to a development of up to 425 dwellings which is largely located outside CL1A (WA/2014/ 0912) and a site with outline planning consent for 75 dwellings (WA/2015/0478). Nevertheless, the large remaining area is assessed as having high landscape value and sensitivity. The Inspector at the appeal into the application for 425 dwellings noted in allowing the appeal that the hills and undulating landscape character of the surrounding areas would remain intact.

The areas of high landscape value and sensitivity adjoining the village are not protected by existing landscape designations in the adopted Local Plan. The NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes (Para 109). The Parish Council strongly supports the use of the Borough Council’s own Landscape Character Review, 2014 evidence base in designating areas of high landscape value and sensitivity. Unless this approach is taken, the Local Plan will not be justified or consistent with the NPPF and would therefore be unsound.

Change(s) considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound

Designate the large part of site CL1A which lies outside the sites granted planning permission for residential development ((WA/2014/ 0912 and WA/2015/0478) and all of site CL6 as Areas of High Landscape Value and Sensitivity or equivalent designation such as an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) based on the Landscape Character Review, 2014.

The parkland area and character surrounding the Victorian house, Knowle Park, commented on in several points in the Waverley Borough Council Landscape Study – Part 1: Farnham & Cranleigh as having particular scenic value. It is visible from the Surrey Hills AONB and therefore contributes to its setting. Designation would contribute towards the protection of the existing high quality visual character of these views from damage by inappropriate development. Its distinctive parkland character, reminiscent of Cranleigh’s manorial past and quality of this landscape significantly enhances the southern boundary of Cranleigh and is distinct from adjoining agricultural land.

In order to give effect to such a local landscape designation, an additional criterion should be added to Policy SP2: Spatial Strategy. This would have the effect of directing development away from designated areas of local landscape value. In order to be the most appropriate strategy and consistent with the NPPF, Policy SP2: Spatial Strategy Criterion 1 should be reworded as follows: Policy SP2: Spatial Strategy To maintain Waverley’s character whilst ensuring that development needs are met in a sustainable manner, the Spatial Strategy to 2032 is to:

1. avoid major development on land of the highest amenity value, such as the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other designated areas of local landscape value and to safeguard the Green Belt… (proposed additional text shown in italics)

Support Policy TD1: Townscape and Design

Support Policy TD1 as sound as it seeks to ensure that the character and amenity of the Borough are protected by requiring new development to be of a high quality that responds to the distinctive local character of the area in which it is located by taking account of design guidance adopted by the Council including Conservation Area Appraisals and associated Management Plans, design statements and Neighbourhood Plans. Object to Policy SS5: Strategic Housing Site at Land South of Elmbridge Road and the High Street, Cranleigh Land South of Elmbridge Road and the High Street, Cranleigh, as identified on the Adopted Policies Map and on the plan below, is allocated for around 765 homes and a country park

The Parish Council is aware that part of the proposed allocation of land South of Elmbridge Road and the High Street, Cranleigh already has planning permission for 500 dwellings and clearly this area should be allocated for housing. Nevertheless, the Parish Council strongly supports Waverley Borough Council’s decision to refuse a planning application WA/ 2015/1569 for 265 dwellings on site (SHLAA site number needed) on 27 April 2016. The grounds for refusal included material and detrimental harm to intrinsic character, beauty and openness of the countryside and visual amenity and remoteness of proposed housing from the village settlement.

Part of this site is Grade 2 agricultural land. In accordance with NPPF, local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality (Para 112).

The Borough Council’s Landscape Character Review, 2014 assesses the part of the site which does not have planning permission as having high landscape value and sensitivity. In line with Para 109 of the NPPF, the Local Plan should seek to protect such valued landscapes.

Part of the site is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

The site is clearly not justified (based on evidence) and contradicts the NPPF in respect of valued landscape designations and the use of Grade 2 agricultural land and is therefore not sound.

Change(s) considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound

Amend the site area of Policy SS5: Strategic Housing Site at Land South of Elmbridge Road and the High Street, Cranleigh, to the area with planning permission for residential development (WA/2014/ 0912 and WA/2015/0478).

Amend the wording of SS5: Strategic Housing Site at Land South of Elmbridge Road and the High Street, Cranleigh, to:

Land South of Elmbridge Road and the High Street, Cranleigh, as identified on the Adopted Policies Map and on the plan below, is allocated for up to 500 homes Object to Policy SS7: New settlement at Dunsfold Aerodrome

The Parish Council supports brownfield development in the borough before the release of green fields for development, provided adequate infrastructure is in place. The Parish Council is concerned about the effect of a new settlement two miles from Cranleigh and requires assurance that the following infrastructure will be delivered in a timely manner to serve new development in order that there are no adverse consequences on Cranleigh. For the infrastructure which is not intended to be provided on site, the Parish Council would want reassurance that there was sufficient capacity in the area to meet the demand from the new development prior to approval of any development. In particular, provision of secondary school, indoor leisure, highway capacity and utilities must be made in order to mitigate against any adverse impacts on local facilities and the local quality of life.

The Parish Council seeks reassurance that the following infrastructure requirements set out in Policy SS7 are retained within the Policy and delivered in line with development:

• a local centre providing local shops and other essential facilities for the day to day needs of residents, • social infrastructure including a new primary school, which will additionally provide early education for two to four year olds, • health facilities, and community facilities. • a financial contribution will also need to be made to off-site secondary school and sixth form provision. • the provision of publicly accessible local and strategic open space, to include a managed Country Park of at least 103 ha. • appropriate on and off site leisure facilities. • necessary highways improvements to mitigate the impact of the development on the surrounding road network and a package of sustainable transport measures to maximise opportunities for alternative forms of transport and to support alternatives to the private car. • Surety of deliverability and funding of utility infrastructure for electricity, gas, water, sewerage and telecommunications to serve the development without having a detrimental impact on the delivery of utility services to existing settlements. and water quality within the river network.

Without this reassurance Local Plan would not be judged as being positively prepared seeking to meet objectively assessed infrastructure requirements and would therefore be unsound.

Change(s) considered necessary to make the Local Plan sound

Incorporate further text within the reasoned justification to the policy which explains how, where and when off site provision of secondary school, indoor and outdoor leisure (including sports pavilions); highway and public transport measures and adequate utility infrastructure are to be achieved. Appendix 1 - Employment Land Summary

Employment Land in Cranleigh was recorded as 32.4ha (17% of total assessed land within the borough).

Employment land availability was one of the key criteria why Cranleigh was selected in the settlement hierarchy as one of the four main sites, alongside Farnham, Godalming and Haslemere.

Employment Land Review 2014

In the Waverley Employment Land Review update August 2014 Hewitt’s Industrial Estate 3ha of land, is listed as the 6th largest site in the report with 5,515 m2 of Total B-class floorspace and noted as having ‘medium’ term scope for change – and that the “site could be redeveloped to provide modern industrial units in the medium term.” At that time a scoping opinion for residential use had already been received by the council on 29th April 2014 for 145 dwellings This scoping opinion was then followed up with a planning application. The industrial estate at that time was half empty and in need of major work:

Units in use: 15

Not in use: 17

Units advertised (To Let): 7

Not available due to poor fabric of building: 10

Cranleigh Brickworks 20ha was still listed as suitable for continued employment use and “having no scope for change” despite a history of three residential planning applications submitted for the site, the last one was received by Waverley on 28th May 2013.

Both of these sites reduced the amount of employment land considerably in Cranleigh from the reported 34.2ha.

Swallow Tiles (0.9ha) land was still being included in the total figure for employment in the 2014 review despite the fact that full permission had been granted on 25th September 2012.

Employment Land Review 2016

The 2016 report still contains No. 46 - Hewitt’s Industrial Estate (3ha) which is listed as having “good” prospects for continued employment use. The site is empty and an appeal for 120 dwellings commences on 11th October 2016.

No. 95 Cranleigh Brickworks (20.0ha) is listed with “poor” prospects for continued employment use as full residential planning permission for 19 dwellings was granted 10/08/2015 (WA/2013/1947). Work is under way remediating and infilling the site in preparation of the housing construction phase.

The report also incorrectly has No 146 Smithbrook Barns attributed to Cranleigh, a site the size of 0.9ha. This should be attributed to Bramley. In Table 2.5 No 93 Langham Park (1.8ha) is incorrectly attributed to Cranleigh instead of Godalming.

No. 57 Cranleigh Freight Services (Whitesales Rooflights in ELR) (0.6ha) is incorrectly attributed to Alfold.

No. 139 Grantley House (0.1ha) is listed as “poor” prospects for continued employment use, however in the 2014 report is was listed as “CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL”.

So there is an overall reduction in available employment land listed in this report of 24.3 hectares to 7.0 available hectares (summary below) of employment land in Cranleigh in September 2016 representing approximately 3.4% of the borough’s total employment land of 206ha. Site Summary for Cranleigh taken from Employment Land Review 2016 Parish Council comments in red below. Site Site name Settle Land Tot al B- Vaca Vacan Land Prospe Justification No. ment area class nt t with cts for (ha) floorspace Floo Parce scope Contin in r- ls for ued surveyed spac (ha) intensifi Emplo designated e cation / yment employme (sq. redevel Use nt m) opment developme (ha) nt sites (sqm)

34 Astra Works Cranle 0.5 1,810 288 Good Well-located igh industrial / sui generis unit in fair condition suited to continued employment use. 35 Cranleigh Cranle 0.3 707 Good Mainly Works / Old igh occupied Factory industrial Work units suitable for continued employment uses.

36 Jewson Ltd Cranle 0.8 2,997 Good Curent Use igh Sui Generis in occupation

37 The Old Cranle 0.1 440 Good Good quality Windmill igh occupied site. 46 Hewitts Cranle 3.0 18,425 1,53 Good Designated Industrial igh 4 employment Estate site of average Appeal condition. starts 11 Planning Oct 2016 application for residential redevelopme nt refused on 30/09/2015 principally on the grounds of loss of suitably located industrial and commercial land. Site Site name Settle Land Tot al B- Vaca Vacan Land Prospe Justification No. ment area class nt t with cts for (ha) floorspace Floo Parce scope Contin in r- ls for ued surveyed spac (ha) intensifi Emplo designated e cation / yment employme (sq. redevel Use nt m) opment developme (ha) nt sites (sqm) 55 Little Mead Cranle 2.1 10,444 0.04 Good Designated Industrial igh site in Estate average condition, fully occupied, with some recent new development .

57 Cranleigh Alfold 0.6 4,173 Good Site fully Freight Incorr occupied and Services ectly in good (Whitesales design condition. Rooflights ated in ELR) as Alfold, should be Cranle igh 62 Manfield Cranle 1.9 9,840 480 Good Suitable for Park igh continued employment use. 95 Cranleigh Cranle 20.0 830 Poor Planning Brickworks igh permission Full for 19 permission dwellings granted granted 10/08/2015 (WA/ 2013/1947)

111 Swallow Cranle Zero Now Tiles Ltd igh residential 138 Gastonia Cranle 0.6 957 Good Fully Coaches, igh occupied site Gaston in good Garage condition suited to continued employment use.

139 Grantley Cranle 0.1 - Poor Now mainly House igh residential.

Appendix 2 - Cranleigh Planning Consents

Site WA/2014/1038 (Amlet’s Lane) granted outline planning permission by Waverley Borough Council on 20 November 2014 - 125 dwellings.

Site WA/2014/0912 (Berkeley Homes) was refused by Waverley Borough Council on 5th January 2015 but granted on appeal in a decision dated 31 March 2016 - 425 dwellings.

Site WA/2014/1754 (Horsham Road – Crest Nicholson) granted outline planning permission by Waverley Borough Council on 28 January 2016 - 149 dwellings.

Site WA/2015/0495 (49 - 53 Horsham Road) was refused by Waverley Borough Council on 17 July 2015 and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in a decision dated 4 February 2016 (Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/W/15/3130438) - 25 dwellings.

Site WA/2014/2384 (Hewitt’s Industrial Estate) was refused under Waverley’s delegated powers in 30 September 2015 with the appeal 11 October 2016 - 120 dwellings.

Site WA/2014/2127 (The Knowle Park Initiative, West Cranleigh Nurseries) was refused by Waverley on 27 April 2016 - 265 dwellings.

Site WA/2015/0478 (Little Meadow) granted outline planning permission by Waverley Borough Council on 16 May 2016 - 75 dwellings.

Site WA/2013/1947 (Cranleigh Brickworks Knowle Lane) full planning permission granted by Waverley Borough Council on 10 August 2015 - 19 dwellings.

Granted in total 793 dwellings Appendix 3 - Cranleigh Residents’ Comments

1. Do you feel that you have been consulted appropriately regarding the local plan growth for Cranleigh?

• Nothing heard about Local Plan until this incentive from Cranleigh Parish Council. • Only read in Surrey Ad. Parish Council not consulted. • All developments have not been assessed objectively. There is no evidence to support this in the Cranleigh area compared to other locations with better infrastructures in Waverley where ‘A’ roads and rail transport is available. Sewage is also a major problem. Flooding is also an issue in parts of Cranleigh. • No I have not received any direct communications regarding the Local Plan. The document Local Plan is very difficult for a lay person to understand. • Not formally – only by local action groups and newspaper. • Not by Waverley Council. Most of the information I have obtained has come from Cranleigh Civic Society and other local concerned groups and newspaper. • Waverley plan has been drawn up in a hurry. Cranleigh has been chosen as an easy option. Uncaring of existing residents. Infrastructure almost non-existent. Roads dreadful, flood plains, sewage inadequate etc. • Nothing heard about local plan until the sign appeared outside the village hall for this evening’s presentation. • I feel that the number of houses allocated to Cranleigh has not been put to the people of Cranleigh who are well aware of the shortcomings of the infrastructure. • Residents of Cranleigh have raised their concerns over a long period. A neighbourhood plan is being prepared. However Waverley have ignored all concerns and imposed their plan on those who voted them in. • As a local resident the only input we have been asked to comment on was four options in the parish magazine. We are now presented with a strategic plan which basically doubles the size of the village without thought to infrastructure and bears little resemblance to the original selected options. • I feel very strongly that as a resident of Cranleigh I have not been consulted about the huge amount of development taking place in our beautiful rural village. • Yes but there is a difference between being asked a question and wanting to listen to the answer. • Time and opportunity given to respond but Amlets Lane development seems to have been passed without any discussion. Several reasons for complete unsuitability – very narrow lane, water drainage problems particularly in winter, volume of traffic already using it. • Although we had some advice when producing the Cranleigh Neighbourhood Plan, there was little useful in the Council presentation in the Leisure Centre. • The consultation that has taken place has not reflected the majority of the population or their views where many planning applications have already been made for excessive housing without sufficient infrastructure (roads/waste) allowed for. • The time frame that the public has been given to read, absorb and assess the weight of material provided by WBC is wholly inadequate. • Too much information to take in at this meeting. How about a locality office in Cranleigh rather than a trip to Godalming. • Most of the materials on display are new to me and it is a lot to take in. • Not enough care and though given to views and needs of people (long term residents) who are not able to attend meetings. • The only contact I had with Waverley on this was a very biased questionnaire a year or so ago with four scenarios to choose from, none of which was acceptable to me. There was no opportunity for me to comment further. • Four scenarios presented a while ago, none acceptable. • Waverley seem to have taken no notice of the results of the four scenarios offered to residents in 2014. They have not considered the lack of transport, roads, sewerage and other infrastructure complaints in Cranleigh. No water cycle study has been carried out. • Warnings of actual infrastructure re transport, sewerage, water/gas/ electricity supply have not been taken seriously. • There were a few scenarios presented to us by WBC Local Plan in Sept/Oct 2014. 3 out of the 4 scenarios put development in Dunsfold as well as Cranleigh in a major way. It was bound to be voted that development came to Cranleigh and Dunsfold due to Farnham and Godalming having a larger population and controlling the vote so as development went to Dunsfold and Cranleigh and not them. Since 2014 we have not been consulted at all in Cranleigh while the other large towns and some villages have been given the opportunity to negotiate for infrastructure and housing they can or cannot accept. • There has been considerable consultation, but little obvious account taken of comment during the consultative process. • The plans are very confusing and not clear as to what goes where. Smoke and mirrors. • No consultation prior to Local Plan production has taken place. • I do not feel that I have been consulted about how many houses are planned. • I have not been contacted by the Parish Council or Borough Council with regards to the Local Plan, and I have not seen details in the local press. • There has been insufficient local debate about the pressure on the local roads around Cranleigh. If most new residents are commuting to Guildford, the roads will not cope (in my view). Shouldn’t this have been addressed before planning permission is given. • However, the process is complicated and not easy understood without considerable effort. • Waverley have not asked my opinion and I feel let down as the lack of consultation. • There have been several open meetings in Cranleigh showing the plans. • Green belt guidelines need to be over-ruled. • The Cranleigh Parish Council are the only organization that has given me any insight to the plans for Cranleigh. This drop-in session has been an eye opener for me. • Until this drop-in session which was organized by Cranleigh Parish Council I have not been consulted at all. • WBC has not consulted directly with Cranleigh Parish Council or the residents of Cranleigh regarding both the amount of housing or the sites proposed in the Local Plan. Farnham and Cranleigh are the two areas in Waverley which have been allocated the majority of housing and neither of these areas have been consulted directly by Waverley in the preparation of the Local Plan. The Parish Council arranged a meeting on 15 September in Cranleigh for residents to learn more about the Local Plan. Waverley Borough Councillors were not prepared to attend this meeting; a further indication of Waverley’s complete lack of consultation with Cranleigh. • Only consultation on Local Plan was in September 2014 when residents were asked to comment on four scenarios based on a housing need of 470 dwellings per annum. There has been no attempt to explain the housing needs assessment (OAN) to local residents, even though it doubled the number of dwellings that were identified in the earlier Local Plan. • WBC has not consulted with Cranleigh or the Parish Council. Farnham and Cranleigh are the only two areas that have not been consulted in the Waverley Local Plan, which quite frankly is a disgrace. Councillors refused to attend a meeting about the plan that was held on 15 September 2016 and arranged by the Parish Council. This is a further demonstration of the complete lack of consultation with Cranleigh. • Cranleigh and Farnham are the only two areas that have not been consulted by Waverley and there was no representation from Councillors at a Parish Council meeting in Cranleigh on 15th September. • Disproportionate housing burdens on Cranleigh and Farnham, especially the former, have resulted in a serious lack of sustainable transport links. Cranleigh has no rail link, no A class roads through the village, it is a half hour’s drive to the M25, 20 minutes drive to the A3 etc. It is by far the most isolated development site in the whole of Waverley and, by definition, the most unsustainable so why is so much dumping of housing permitted? The supply of electric bicycles is not helping here. Cranleigh has no means of absorbing the workforce resulting from all the proposed population increase. Indeed, Cranleigh has limited employment land, overstated in the Employment Land Review. Again traffic generation will be far in excess of the number where painting a few white lines in the roads will solve the problem. Hardly a plus for sustainability. • To my knowledge WBC has not been in consultation with Cranleigh Parish Council or residents at any level. It would appear Farnham and Cranleigh are the only areas not to have been consulted with regard to the plan. From a Cranleigh resident’s point of view I find this disgraceful. The WBC planning team were not willing to attend a meeting on 15 September 2016 in Cranleigh Village Hall to discuss local residents concerns with regard to the plan. • As far as I am aware Cranleigh or the Parish Council has not been consulted by WBC. Cranleigh and Farnham are two areas not to have been consulted in the Waverley Local Plan. A meeting was held in Cranleigh on 15 September 2016 arranged by the Parish Council. No Councillors attended why no consultation to address concerns with Cranleigh residents? • I do not feel that WBC has been entirely straight forward about their motivations or justifications for placing so many houses in/around Cranleigh. I do not feel that WBC has taken account of serious infrastructure shortcomings in Cranleigh. • Consultation in September 2014 was between four scenarios based on WBC target of 470 new houses per annum. Dunsfold Park was preferred by residents for bulk of development at that time to protect Cranleigh village from over development and retain its village atmosphere. (650 houses in total as opposed to 1,520). • The plan and associated documents plus all relevant legislation is far too complex for the residents to be able to read, understand and comment. No attempt has been made to communicate in an acceptable or reasonable format. • WBC has not consulted with Cranleigh or the Parish Council. A meeting was arranged in Cranleigh on 15th September 2016, and no borough Councillors attended. Cranleigh has been ignored.

2. Do you think that the Local Plan has been positively prepared?

• Impossible to achieve sustainable development, e.g. few proper local jobs • Infrastructure including roads and sewerage totally inadequate. • Infrastructure totally inadequate especially roads and sewerage. Sustainable development impossible. • No and although a minimal traffic study has been carried out this does not reflect the true situation. Cranleigh is often clogged with long queues to pass through. • The plan and proposed developments in Cranleigh cannot be regarded as sustainable. There are insufficient transport links to major employment areas resulting in a very high dependence on motor vehicles to and from Cranleigh. I have a 60 mile daily commute taking in very busy roads with significant congestion. This does not only affect Cranleigh it affects settlements between my home and place of work. It is impractical for me to travel to work by public transport as the journey each way takes more than 2 hours. • There appears to be no consideration of effect and management of strain on infrastructure, e.g. access, roads and infrastructure- sewerage. • I have not seen any evidence that better/more roads will be provided or any other non-road transport will be provided to accommodate 1,500 + people and cars. I understand our water and sewerage facilities are stretched with current population numbers and no plan to build more facilities before they are needed. • Waverley plan has been drawn up in a hurry. Cranleigh has been chosen as an easy option. Uncaring of existing residents. Infrastructure almost non-existent. Roads dreadful, flood plains, sewage inadequate etc. • Threats to natural wildlife habitats. Environmental damage to essential green belt. Unsustainable, few local jobs. Infrastructure is totally inadequate – roads, sewage, schools, healthcare. • It has been positively prepared but proper consideration has not been given to the poor access to Cranleigh when compared to the other major settlements in Horsham. • Those who prepared the plan obviously have no experience of the A281 and its bottlenecks and the minor roads feeding off it or they would know that it cannot cope with increased traffic. • It would seem like an easy option by Waverley due to the limited green belt land around the village. Little or no consideration has been given to how the additional population can be accommodated – inadequate sewerage treatment – no trunk roads linking town centres – flooding, parking and no station. None of these issues have been properly considered. • Definitely not. There is no evidence for such a high demand for housing in Cranleigh. • It seems any and all concerns about infrastructure and suitability have been ignored. • The local Parish Council has not been consulted regarding the number of houses so does not reflect local requirements or needs. • The Waverley Local Plan Part One has been prepared with out of date evidence or evidence that would not stand up to hard scrutiny. For instance there has been no water cycle study not only for Cranleigh Waters but other areas – Hitherwood and Nightingales were built on marsh land and have known flooding issues. The desk based traffic study has centred on A281 with no consideration to smaller local routes that encircle Cranleigh – otherwise known as the ‘rat runs’. • It seems to comply. • What about roads – our railway bridge access and single narrow pot holed roads in and out of the village constantly used by huge lorries – more care needed in thinking beyond the box houses. • No consultation with local people, even though in the Local Plan it states that residents in the borough have been consulted. It is a lie. • No consultation with Summerlands estate Residents Association. • The fact that the large scale development planned will completely ruin this village has not been considered. • No consideration has been made concerning residents in the village and the impact that the rush to develop will have on them. • Waverley are between the rock of central government directives and the hard place of infrastructure constraints and lack of funding to invest in the infrastructure to manage the constraints. • What about the infrastructure roads, drainage and sewage and flooding of local land. • For Cranleigh – it is a village it is situated in a part of Surrey that can still be described as leafy Surrey. The proposals for over 4,000 new dwellings in or near to Cranleigh will destroy our community and environment. • Not enough proper evidence has been gathered. • It is not positive for Cranleigh. This village does not have the capacity for this number of houses – many areas of infrastructure need improvement now, i.e. with the current number of houses. • I don’t feel qualified to answer. • Cannot comment. • Not much consultation with local residents, apart from a biased questionnaire about one year ago. • Don’t understand what positively prepared means. • Neighbouring towns have unmet their requirements. Towns with better infrastructure than Cranleigh who have railway stations should take higher proportion. • I believe the infrastructure planning is still lacking and fails to meet both current and future requirements. • Cranleigh’s infrastructure is totally inadequate for sustained development due to e.g. sewage already a known problem, roads unable to take the volume of traffic, no railway to relieve the problem. • In Cranleigh it is impossible for sustained development. The infrastructure is totally inadequate, e.g. sewage, roads (only narrow B roads), no railway. • Housing development on the proposed scale in the Cranleigh area will have a negative effect on existing residents. This is contrary to the NPPF. This level of housing in this part of the borough is unsustainable for the long term for both current and future residents. The lack of infrastructure has not been properly considered; particularly sewage, water supply and electricity. Cranelgih’s sewage works is already at capacity and currently discharges ‘grey’ water into an ephemeral water course. There are regular power cuts, Thames Water tankers regularly pump out foul water from the mains sewers and just this week a Primary School has to close and large numbers of Cranleigh residents were without mains water for most of a day owing to burst mains pipes. The lack of transport infrastructure has not been properly considered. Traffic from 50% of all development proposed in the Local Plan is to come from the Cranleigh and Dunsfold Park areas. Of this, 70% of traffic from Cranleigh and 80% of traffic from Dunsfold Park is modelled to flow northwards from Guildford. Cranleigh’s main access road to and from thr A281 is the Elmbridge Road. This road has two one-way stretches; two on Alfold Road and one on Run Common Road. None of these roads have been modelled in the Local Plan. The congested A281 and the B2130 will result in traffic dispersing onto surrounding unclassified minor roads. None of these minor roads have been modelled. There is no sustainable transport solution in Cranleigh. There is no station and public transport is limited. • The Local Plan has not taken into account the infrastructure limitations in and around Cranleigh. Although limitations are acknowledged in the Local Plan there has been no positive effort to identify solutions and estimate the costs involved. • In relation to Cranleigh, infrastructure has not been considered, particularly sewerage and electricity. A development of this scale will only have a negative effect on existing residents which is contrary to the NPPF and is unsustainable for the long term for the people of Cranleigh. Even without the proposed additional housing we have regular powers cuts. On 15th September, residents of Cranleigh were without mains water for most of the day owing to burst mains pipes. Traffic from 50% of all of the development in the Local Plan is destined to come from he Cranleigh and Dunsfold areas. 70% of traffic from Cranleigh and 80& of the traffic from Dunsfold park is modelled to flow northwards from Guildford. Cranleigh is served by minor roads. There are two one-way stretches on Elmbridge Road, two on Alfold Road and one on Run Common Road. None of these roads have been modelled in the Local Plan. The congested A281 and B2130 will result in traffic dispersing onto surrounding unclassified minor roads. None of these minor roads have been modelled either. There is no sustainable transport solution in Cranleigh. The train station closed in 1965 with no prospect of reinstatement and the bus service is unreliable and irregular. • The infrastructure in Cranleigh has not been taken into consideration and does not seem to be sustainable for the long term wellbeing of residents. Aspects of traffic management have not been considered, especially on the A281 and the minor roads in and around the area will not cope. There is no station in Cranleigh and the local bus services is expensive and irregular. • Known infrastructure plans of SCC and WBC are minimal compared with income to be generated from the new builds. Housing numbers must be dependent according to infrastructure limitations. How does this impact on SHMA? Infrastructure deficiencies include: Water issues – sewage treatment already at saturation level and the consideration of digging a mega-cesspit at Snoxhall Fields (since abandoned) illustrates the realization that this is a very serious issue. Thames Water, in recognizing the situation and has imposed Grampian conditions to more than one of the developments in Cranleigh because of lack of capacity, and now also on Dunsfold. Water supply is also problematical. Health services appear to be assumed to be satisfactory. They are not. Arrangements to absorb another 30% of population into Cranleigh, for example, appear non-existent despite a wait at present to see one’s designated GP of 2 – 3 weeks at present and of more than one week to see anyone (assuming non urgent at the time of trying). School provision is a continuously varying target at present, with new proposals being submitted almost weekly. It is difficult to see how accurate requirements are assessed under these conditions. Poor quality and narrow lanes, again in the east of the Borough. Many of these lanes have never been properly constructed, having a surface laid on bare earth with no foundation, and thus being liable to be torn up by the heavy construction lorries to be used. • I feel in Cranleigh the overall infrastructure has not been considered in enough details, i.e. water, sewerage and electricity supply which fails on a regular basis. Cranleigh and Dunsfold is served by minor roads network such a large increase in traffic is not sustainable. I would suspect none of these roads have been modelled in the overall plan. • I do not believe any consideration has been given to the infrastructure i.e. sewerage, electricity, water, roads, schools. Even without extra housing Cranleigh already has regular power cuts, burst mains pipes, traffic congestion. • Not if the definition of positive means taking account of the interests of local people, or having regard to their concerns about over development of an environmentally sensitive area. • Unfair distribution of development planned for Cranleigh without regard to infrastructure of transport, water, sewage – easy option for WBC because outside green belt. In the plan they state there are no fundamental issues arising from the planned growth in the borough which is blatantly false. • It does not meet objectively assessed infrastructure requirements indeed in places it implies there will be dealt with later or are unknown. • No consideration has been given to infrastructure especially water, sewage and electricity, let alone traffic implications. Cranleigh has old water mains which keep bursting and the sewage works cannot cope with the current volume.

3. Do you think that the Local Plan is justified?

• Bearing in mind Cranleigh population of approximately 11,500, the number of houses allocated to us (nearly 50%) is totally disproportionate. No railway station, no A-roads. • Housing numbers not challenged. No account taken of poor communications, i.e. Cranleigh/Dunsfold furthest point in Waverley from a railway station or a dual carriageway. Served only by ‘B’ roads (Cranleigh). Already chaotic conditions on A281 through Bramley, Shalford and Guildford one way system. • Disproportionate number of dwellings have been allocated to Cranleigh – nearly half of WBC’s allocation. • Definitely not as there are better alternatives which Waverley seem to ignore and over-ride local residents’ objections. • I understand that the demand for housing in Waverley is not concentrated in Cranleigh, that the demand exists in Farnham. There is no justification in providing homes where there is not the demand just to make up the numbers. Build houses where the demand is. • This is a disproportionate amount of new build housing in relation to the current population. Access to proposed sites will cause a massive strain on existing roads and I understand that water/sewerage provisions are already at capacity and there seems to be no plans to increase capacity. • I cannot see how 48% of the housing development should fall into such a small area with one major road, schools which are already neat to or at full capacity, no rail station, no hospital and a small High Street. I have not seen any alternative plans put forward to the public let alone assessed. • No. Large scale building so close to centre will completely change the character of this lovely village. Not enough employment in area so most people will have to commute on very narrow ‘B’ roads which are already congested. Sewage situation is already in a dire situation. • The local plans do not seem to fairly reflect the size of Cranleigh village and how many houses it is expected to absorb – disproportionate to all other Waverley towns/villages – unsustainable. • I do not think that the proposals are the most appropriate strategy to meet the housing needs as it has not taken into account the infrastructure, particularly transport links to Cranleigh which are poor, compared to the other major settlements. • Yes we need more housing, but more importantly the infrastructure needs considerable improvement first. Housing needs to be affordable and of a manageable number, and not for residents of Crawley, Woking, Croydon etc.. • There is no demand for this mass development in or around Cranleigh either from local residents and certainly not from any local industry. Requirement apart from local shops and some small commercial enterprises. The majority of residents commute to Guildford, Horsham or other towns where employment is plentiful. There development plan is therefore not justified. • There is no demand for this sort of mass development. Cranleigh has very little industry, people do not commute into this village. • What are the alternatives we are being offered? Out of the frying pan into the fire. • It is not justified when local consultation has not taken place correctly with the Parish Council. • Any Local Plan is justified, but the impact of each development on each other of the other developments within this plan have not been considered, let alone cross border impacts. • You cannot build your way out of the expanding population. • Partly – no more building until infrastructure provided please. No more coffee shops or charity shops. More help in transporting elderly around. More money on roads etc less greed for residents from builders, developers and shop keepers. • Yes of course we need a Local Plan, but I read it all online and it does not properly consider infrastructure at all. • Yes but local residents should be consulted. • It cannot be justified to put 40% of the borough’s five year housing supply requirement in and around Cranleigh. • Too greater emphasis on putting 40% of the five year housing supply on Cranleigh when it has no main transport infrastructure. Perhaps WBC still think like Carla that it still has a railway station. • Not even out Parish Council has been consulted. • No the homes projected in the Local Plan are not for local people but being used as an overspill for Londoners being kicked out to make way for investment money. • Cranleigh cannot absorb or accommodate development on this scale. There are huge building developments taking place just over the border to the south around Horsham, Crawley and Billingshurst. • It cannot be justified to put unsustainable housing in this rural area. • How can this high proportion of Waverley’s housing allocation be unfairly dumped on Cranleigh? Where is the justification? How can so many of our greenfields be ruined when we do not actually need this many houses in Cranleigh? The lack of consultation with Cranleigh residents and Cranleigh Parish Council is not in line with the Local Plan rules and process. • Yes in that new houses are needed but the whole picture needs to be assessed before the plan is approved. This does not feel like a transparent process. • Understand that there is a government directive. However the projected growth figures which are assumed should themselves be challenged vigorously. • I thought the Local Plan was mandatory. Once again, don’t understand the question. • Totally unjustified. Roads out of Cranleigh are narrow lanes unable to take many more vehicles. A281 bypass road would become deadlocked by cars and other vehicles from Dunsfold and Cranleigh. • Based on current needs and realistic alternatives the plan is justified though not necessarily the only alternative. • Of the four main settlements Cranleigh has the lowest population approximately 11,500, yet we are expected to provide almost half of the total. • Cranleigh’s population is about 11,500 the lowest by far of the four main settlements but we are being asked to take the highest number of dwellings – almost half of the total. • A disproportionate amount of housing has been allocated to the Cranleigh area just because it has no protection from green belt. This is in spite of the fact that there is no identified need for this level of housing in this part of the borough. • No explanation is given to the about turn in the WBC policy on Dunsfold. WBC originally opposed the development of Dunsfold and gives no convincing arguments for its change in policy. • A disproportionate amount of housing has been allocated to Cranleigh because it has no protection from green belt. This will have a negative effect on the rural nature of our village to the detriment of its residents. • There is a huge disproportionate amount of housing that has been allocated to Cranleigh. It seems because it has no protection from green belt. • The whole building requirement depends on the strategic market housing assessment (SHMA). WBC should obtain an independent estimate of the SHMA. When Blaby, Leicestershire, did this a short while ago their independently estimated SHMA totaled 50% that of the applicants. The inspector described this outcome as surprising and a matter of concern and said that he could place little or no reliance on either SHMA. SHMAs should be treated with great caution. The operation of the NPPF, House of Commons Select Committee Communities and Local Government published 16 December 2014. • It is obvious a disproportionate amount of the housing plan has been allocated to Cranleigh simply because it has no protection from green belt. • Just because Cranleigh has no protection from green belt a disproportionate amount of housing has been allocated. • Not in its current form. It places too much emphasis on development in Cranleigh and does not recognize or propose how to deal with the lack of local employment opportunities or inadequate transport provisions. • WBC should be challenging the number of houses in SHMAA – employment not good/rising in the area if employment sites used for house building, road infrastructure, sewage system could not cope with influx of additional residents as they would travel to work outside the parish and bring gridlock to our roads (A281 in particular). Adverse impact would outweigh benefit. • The plan fails to take account of the changing national/international scene, e.g. Brexit and a cessation of mass immigration. • Too much housing has been allocated to Cranleigh because it lacks green belt protection. The infrastructure for Cranleigh has not been considered at all.

4. Do you think that the Local Plan is effective? • Impossible to deliver sustainable development. • It places too many houses where commuting will be more common than local employment. • Sustainable development not deliverable. • No this will just add further to the problems already existing in Cranleigh. • The plan will not enable the delivery of sustainable development and is therefore not effective. There is no point providing the houses where job opportunities within the locality would not provide sufficient remuneration to pay a mortgage. The summary site results A2 (employment) do not support this level of development. This will result in homeowners travelling great distances for many hours to find mortgages reducing their productivity and quality of life. • Non complaint with the NPPF – no water cycle or infrastructure studies. • No compliance with the NPPF. No water cycle or infrastructure studies have been provided. Have not consulted residents or Parish Council. • The local plan is ineffective as is unsustainable with the increase in population, traffic etc. • I do not think that the plan provides for sustainable development in the Cranleigh area, and has clearly not considered the transport links to either Guildford or Horsham (the nearest much larger employment areas, or indeed Crawley, Gatwick or London). • Because it has not been discussed with those mainly affected. No indication where Council have got their data from re-housing needs. • It will ruin a rural village environment. Cranleigh will become over populated. People have come to live in Cranleigh because it is a rural country community which will be changed by doubling the population with the attendant problems associated with larger urban towns. • This local plan will destroy the village as we know it. The road system cannot cope, parking is now a huge problem, health centre is over- stretched as are the schools. Our public services cannot cope. • Time will tell. • It meets the requirements for housing. It does not meet the need for employment, transport, drainage. The road system will not cope with the additional needs. • It is not effective when housing site allocations have not been agreed with local Parish Council. • Any further developments in the Cranleigh/Dunsfold/Alfold area will only add to major problems and concerns that already exist: drainage and flooding, smell and sewage pollution already blight Cranleigh, traffic congestion, noise and air quality, particularly through Bramley where there are schools adjacent to the main road – the A281, i.e. within 200 metres. • You cannot build your way out of the expanding population. • Too rushed and where are the legal representatives? • Very poorly put together and ill thought out. For example, rule 1 in modern planning is to build new houses close to jobs/railway stations. • The infrastructure in Cranleigh is non-existent – problems with sewage, transportation, mobile phone signal to name but a few. • No. Thought has not been given to the lack of infrastructure in Cranleigh. No station, poor roads and overloaded sewerage system for starters. I thought that modern planning rules state these things have to be given priority. • Too greater emphasis on putting 40% of the five year housing supply on Cranleigh when it has no main transport infrastructure. Perhaps WBC still think like Carla that it still has a railway station. • The lack of consultation has resulted in a plan that will put around 48% of housing in Cranleigh and Dunsfold. There is not the infrastructure here to cope with it and no plans that will put the necessary infrastructure in place. • It is not effective because of the lack of infrastructure investment – transport in particular. The A281 is already log jammed at particular times of day. Development in Horsham and Guildford will make this worse and the current plan will result in complete lack of sustainability. Also water supplies, hospitals, schools, surgeries are already over stretched in Waverley. • What justification is provided for this housing in Cranleigh. Bungalows are being demolished to make way for 5 bed houses. Where do older people live in Cranleigh. • It is destructive and damaging to the environment. Air pollution from traffic, sewerage from inadequate facilities for treatment, flooding, over crowding, lack of schools, doctors surgeries. • It does not deal with local problems. • It is not effective in safeguarding Cranleigh’s culture and future of the green fields. • Not enough consideration of infrastructure, or the needs of the poorest and refugees. • Cannot comment. • Does not reflect the serious lack of infrastructure in Cranleigh. • The infrastructure in particular highways will not be able to take extra traffic. The A281 is officially full to capacity and Cranleigh High Street and feeder roads is often nose to tail during rush hour and school runs. • Totally ineffective, biased against Cranleigh. • There are concerns over its ability to deliver and sustain fully affordable housing. • Inadequate facilities for this amount of development. • It is not possible to deliver sustainable development. • Waverley should not be attempting to meet Farnham’s affordable housing need by building in the Cranleigh area. Housing development should be sustainable but there is limited local employment in the Cranleigh area and transport facilities are poor. The lack of local infrastructure in the Cranleigh area has not been properly considered. • The Local Plan gives no clear view on how the infrastructure limitations will be resolved. As such, the effective delivery of the Plan has to be questioned. • You cannot meet Farnham’s affordable housing need in Cranleigh. As stated previously, a disproportionate amount of housing has been allocated to Cranleigh because it has no protection from green belt. However Cranleigh has not been consulted and its infrastructure has not been considered. Cranleigh’s rural environment needs protecting so that it retains its village ethos and character. This high level of proposed new housing will destroy that character. • There is no plan for changing the infrastructure to cope with the disproportionate level of additional housing allocated to Cranleigh. • Sustainability requirements fail on all three counts on almost all of the developments in the east of the borough. The three keystones for sustainability environment, economic and social are failed by transportation issues, land being available in the wrong places and not reflecting the communities needs respectively. There is virtually no burden on the villages listed as smaller villages. A grand total of 150 houses to be provided between 8 villages equates to 1 house/year/ village. Can no more be found or is this a case of not wishing to destroy the character of the village. If this is the case why does it not apply to Cranleigh? Its village character will be destroyed forever should this plan be approved. We note that Bramley always seems to be able to find space for expensive housing (note the three on the left as one enters Bramley from the south on the A281). • Cranleigh cannot meet Farnham’s affordable housing needs without massive changes to its infrastructure and green belt areas. • It is not effective to meet Farnham’s affordable housing need in Cranleigh. A disproportionate amount of housing has been allocated to Cranleigh with no consideration of the infrastructure. Reason being Cranleigh has no protection from green belt. • Local Plan poorly thought through – an easy option to dump such a large proportion of new housing in Cranleigh where road, water, sewage infrastructure could not cope and village would be swamped. This is purely through a viable lack of alternative sites not because such housing is needed in Cranleigh. • It does not make a case for it being a ‘sustainable’ plan. • Not for Cranleigh in terms of the volume of housing proposed: we are served by small ‘B’ roads, we have no station and no thought has been given to the impact of this volume of housing on the community.

5. Do you think that the Local Plan is consistent with National Policies?

• Residents have not been properly consulted and infrastructure deficiencies have not been properly considered. WBC have not carried out full Water Cycle Study. • No full Water Cycle Study carried out. Proper consideration of infrastructure deficiencies has not been given. No proper consultation with residents. • No environment issues are not being taken into account as part of the overall planning. • The plan is not supported by sufficient employment opportunities. • Non-compliance with national planning framework. • Not compliant with National Planning Policy Framework. • Possibly. • Local people/residents have not been properly consulted – plans are unclear. Infrastructure deficiencies not considered and prospects for destruction of natural habitats. Water cycle study not completed. • Maybe it is consistent with some policies, but should not build on areas liable to flooding. Should not build where infrastructure cannot cope. Brown fields before green fields. • Maybe, but that is no reason why due consideration should not be given to the infrastructure and environmental problems the mass development will inflict on a very pleasant rural village. The basics have not been properly considered. • I am not a planning officer so I do not know. The village can cope with some new development but not this mass development which will double the size of Cranleigh. • As national policies change with each government’s interpretation of housing needs. • If the national policy is to out as many houses as possible in a place with the suitable infrastructure, then yes. • It is not sustainable development. • As understood national policy for housing numbers has reduced the need to concentrate such high density numbers in this area. • Transports, air quality, building on flood plains, green energy, the environment, housing need – affordable housing. • National policies are wrong. • What assurance do we as residents have before our entire village becomes a complete brick and tarmac highway/orbital road to somewhere else, where none of us can access as we are confined in our own homes. • National policy (NPP) states that infrastructure should be studied, but his draft Local Plan is unsound on several points. For Example, there is no water cycle study, a basic requirement. • The infrastructure in Cranleigh is non-existent – problems with sewage, transportation, mobile phone signal to name but a few. • NPPF states that infrastructure should be considered. This was not done, e.g. no water cycle study done. • Infrastructure should be in place first and not an after thought. • I think that WBC Local Plan is unsound in its current form due to disproportionate housing being placed in an area that has no suitable infrastructure to cope with increased population. It is unsustainable as there is no employment in Cranleigh causing the new residents to travel far and wide for employment. • We have been told to build these houses by the EU to house 3,000,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe. Cranleigh has no protection on our green belt. Cranleigh will now be destroyed. • It is not sustainable. • No – where was the consultation? • Not qualified to answer. • Cannot comment. • National policy says local people should be fully consulted. • Not a sustainable development. • There are still unanswered questions relating to flooding and drainage for some areas of development. • Residents have not been properly informed of the effect of high water levels on their property. A full water cycle study by WBC would have shown this. • Residents have not been properly consulted. The infrastructure inadequacies have not been fully considered. Why have WBC not had a full water cycle study carried out. • There is no social or economic justification for this volume of housing to be built in the Cranleigh area. Green belt is not an environmental constraint, it is only a planning constraint and the government does allow green belt boundaries to change. • No opinion as not conversant with national policies. • There is no social or economic justification for putting this volume of housing in Cranleigh. Green belt is not an environmental constraint, it is only a planning constraint and the government allows the green belt boundaries to change. • There is no social or economic justification for this level of housing. • The register of brownfield sites within the borough appears to be missing from the Local Plan. This would be appear to be crucial regarding the NPPF recommendation to use brownfield sites where available before greenfield. We have been promised that by several prominent politicians (even by Eric Pickles MP in a rare enlightened moment) but it is always the greenfields that are used. This is clearly because it is more convenient and cheaper for the developers to use virgin land rather than have to use possibly contaminated land and to undergo cleansing operations before work can commence. This could be made more attractive to developers if a fund was established, either locally or preferably nationally, for the remediation of brownfield sites. A petition was submitted signed by 1400 residents in April 2014 to say that brownfield sites should be built upon before greenfields again ignored. • I can no justification to put such a large volume of housing in Cranleigh. Green belt is only a planning constraint. Government seems to allow boundaries to change without consultation. • I feel there is no social or economic justification to build houses on such a scale that is currently being considered. Cranleigh and its infrastructure would not cope with 48% of the entire borough’s need for housing. • No – National policies to prefer development of brownfield sites and create sustainable development where there is an objectively assessed need. Areas at risk of flooding or adverse environmental impact to be avoided – no recognition of Cranleigh’s flood risk or special village character. • The new Secretary of State has stated publicly that green belt is absolutely sacrosanct. It does not meet climate change policies as it will increase transport emissions overall. • There is no social or economic justification to add this amount of housing to Cranleigh.

6. Do you think that the Local Plan is legally compliant?

• Residents have not been properly consulted and infrastructure deficiencies have not been properly considered. WBC have not carried out full Water Cycle Study. • Cranleigh Waters is an issue. A Sustainability Appraisal is required but this has not been carried out in sufficient detail. Currently the waters below Cranleigh are dead, Waverley has failed to carry out a Water Cycle Study. • The plan is unsustainable, I was not involved in its production and I have an interest in my local environment of Cranleigh. • No water cycle survey/assessment. • Have not carried out required consultations or water cycle study. The sustainability appraisal is a complex document and needs to be broken down for non-planning experts (i.e. many local residents) to understand. • Don’t know. • Due to the lack of consultation of local residents and research studies of local habitats not considered. • I think it is dubious because of reasons previously stated. • No proper comprehensive appraisal has been undertaken by Waverley especially with regard to Cranleigh Waters. • We have huge problems in Cranleigh with the rivers and sewage. All our rivers are dead rivers. We have had no public meetings to explain the extent of what is proposed. None of our concerns have been addressed. There has been no traffic survey – living on the A281 through Bramley is a nightmare which in turn causes problems at Shalford and the one way system through Guildford. No one from Waverley has even bothered to meet the residents – it is a disgrace. • Impossible for general public to tell. • It would not appear to be compliant when the local Parish Council has not been involved in the preparation of the evidence documents. • There has been no water cycle study regarding Cranleigh Waters, let alone the areas around Cranleigh where the rivers and brooks used to flow. I also suspect that the air quality in Bramley and areas of Farnham already fall outside legal limits at peak times. • National policies are wrong. • No water cycle study. No proper public consultation – just a biased survey less than 4% of residents answered. • I am not qualified to comment. • No proper public consultation carried out. Even our Parish Council not properly consulted. • Public consultation flawed. Poor consultation. • WBC have approved several outline planning applications for large estates to fill a five year housing supply number. They have also placed them in the Local Plan. They have ignored the fact that the outline planning applications are probably undeliverable due to lack of sewage and other infrastructure. • No idea as the maps are smoke and mirrors. • It is not sustainable or beneficial to present and future residents. • No, because we were non consulted. • Lack of consultation. • Not qualified to answer. • Cannot comment. • No water cycle study has been carried out to stage 2. • No Sustainability Appraisal reflecting social environment or economical factors. Flooding and sewage problems would increase environmentally the unfair distribution of housing directly affect Cranleigh village. • Residents have not been properly informed of the effect of high water levels on their property. A full water cycle study by WBC would have shown this. • Residents have not been properly consulted. The infrastructure inadequacies have not been fully considered. Why have WBC not had a full water cycle study carried out. • It is not sustainable for 48% of the entire borough’s housing to be built in the Cranleigh and Dunsfold area. • No opinion. • It is not sustainable to put 48% of the entire borough’s housing needs in the Cranleigh and Dunsfold area. • I would question whether it is legally or morally compliant when 48& of the entire Waverley target has been allocated to the Cranleigh and Dunsfold area. • The plan depends far too much on the use of greenfield sites to fulfil its land requirements and should fail on sustainability grounds for each of the three main criteria, social, environment and economic. The social factor is rarely considered by Waverley. Many of the delivered sites are outside the urban boundary, where planners always make them exceptional cases and are not sustainable from the transportation requirement with the use of the car almost certain to be the primary transport mode. The planners overriding concern is seen as to get as many development projects passed through the system as possible, regardless of location, quality etc. Opportunistic landowners and developers rule. On the whole this plan is a disaster for Waverley, even more so as its rejection would give the developers another free ride for the period that it takes to rectify its deficiencies. • In my opinion no it is not sustainable to imagine you can put 48% of the WBC housing needs in Cranleigh and Dunsfold. • To put 48% of the entire borough’s need in the Cranleigh and Dunsfold area would not be sustainable. • I do not feel competent to comment on this section. • I do not know but it should certainly be challenged as contravening sustainable development – defined as positive growth for economic, environmental and social progress for future generations. Paving over our greenfields in Cranleigh is not a legacy to be proud of. It would create huge problems for future generations – not at all positive. • Does not meet guidance on green belt – transport emissions or sustainability. • How can it be that 48% of the entire borough’s housing need should be placed in the Cranleigh/Dunsfold area.

7. Do you think that the Local Plan has complied with the duty to cooperate

• Cranleigh Parish Council and we as residents have not been properly consulted. • Because we are not allowed to know how the figures for houses were derived. • WBC have not consulted with Cranleigh Parish Council and/or residents. • Insufficient consultation has taken place and Waverley advise that only 3.5% of the population responded with the feedback being ignored. We are also not aware of the locations of the respondees or how many were from the Waverley area. • I do not believe that Cranleigh has co-operated with the needs of the residents of Cranleigh. They have concentrated too many houses in an area with insufficient infrastructure to support them. Waverley needs to re-consider this plan. • Lack of direct engagement with local residents. • There has not been engagement with the local community. I have not seen any information from the Council using social media re pros and cons of the planning applications. • Due to the lack of communication and consultation with local residents of the village. • Bulldoze over everybody and impose plan seems to be the message. • Only 3.5% of the local population have responded to the plan and yet even this feedback appears to have been ignored by Waverley. We also have no idea where these respondents are located. • Absolutely not. The only information received has come to us direct from Cranleigh Society who have done their best to keep us informed. • Yes but I am not sure it is realized how much it will affect the area adversely. • Does not meet the feedback others have received from service suppliers, such as water, sewage, electricity, BT. • There has not been sufficient co-operation with the local Parish Council regarding housing numbers, site allocation or evidence documentation. • The Local Plan is being imposed on us, no matter what. The areas of objection have been narrowed down to soundness and legal compliance with so many technicalities to consider in such a short space of time. The spirit of co-operation with the public is lost – a double whammy – as the goodwill of the public will carry a plan through. Sadly there is little evidence of cross boundary co-operation either based on past performance. • Why not just forget the history, pull down everything of value in our village and totally re-build it to allow more people to move in and become housebound. • No real public consultation. • No consultation with Summerlands Estate Residents Association. • Again – no public consultation or proper consideration of infrastructure provision. • Public consultation flawed. Poor consultation. • They have not complied as far as Cranleigh is concerned. We have been presented with a plan that is nothing like the numbers suggested in the 2014 scenarios. They stated Cranleigh and Dunsfold to have 4,500 + dwellings. • No very difficult to navigate through the documents. Not divided into clear sections – appendix for ease of use. • No, unless the existing benefits or living in this lovely area are preserved and improved. • No because were not involved in the process. • No – lack of consultation shows that WBC did not even ask for co- operation. • Not qualified to answer. • Cannot comment. • WBC are not listening to Cranleigh inhabitants or their Parish Council. • Failure to consult in depth on this major development with Cranleigh Parish Council and residents by WBC. • WBC have failed to consult. Cranleigh Parish Council and/or residents. • Traffic from 50% of all development in the Local Plan is to come from the Cranleigh and Dunsfold Park areas. The majority of this traffic on Guildford’s gyratory system. The impact of this amount of traffic on Guildford’s gyratory system has not been modelled in the transport evidence provided. • Limitations have been raised by public bodies that have not been properly addressed, for example by the Environment Agency, WBC have not engaged constructively with the EA on flood risks. • The impact of 50% of the Local Plan’s traffic from new housing will flow directly onto Guildford’s gyratory system which has not been modelled in the transport evidence provided. Without any new housing, for those unfortunate enough to have to commute to London, it is impossible to get a seat on the train at Guildford unless you travel prior to 0717 hours. With reduced parking at Guildford station owing to development, for those travelling to London later in the day, parking at Guildford station or Farnham Road is often impossible. • It does not appear that co-operation has occurred with Guildford given that a huge volume of traffic will enter the town centre which is already extremely congested. • What constitutes co-operation? WBC planners appear to be very good at co-operating with all developers. At one time they recommended acceptance of 17 successive proposals to the JPC. Questions from the public are often not so favourably regarded, with no response to emails, especially from CPOs. Public opinion on planning decisions are largely brushed aside by WBC, presumably in order to fulfil the demands of new housing targets. The planning portfolio holder and planning officers for Waverley have visited most of the villages. However Cranleigh and Farnham the most affected by development were not visited. • As far as I am aware there has been no WBC planning staff available at any of the local meetings to discuss the plan itself and answer any concerns regarding the effect on the local community its infrastructure and services. • Cranleigh residents have lots of concerns regarding the infrastructure and services relating to Cranleigh village. The meeting held on 15 September 2016 in Cranleigh, residents of Cranleigh had expected representation from WBC planning department to be available at the meeting to confirm what plans are currently in place to upgrade Cranleigh village infrastructure. The present services could not possibly support the proposed housing development. • If anything, the Local Plan has over complied. By this, I mean that WBC has not challenged any of the assumptions in the SHMAA, nor has it challenged the number of houses required under the OAN. • Cranleigh Parish Council’s voice seems to fall on deaf ears at WBC who appear to be dictating the future development of the village. Our Neighbourhood Plan should be given more weight – that is what local residents want – to minimize effects on environmental wellbeing and character of area. • Insufficient attention has been paid to co-operation with water authorities, sewage disposal authorities and broadband suppliers. • Traffic problems will be enormous: the A281 is currently at capacity. Guildford town centre is frequently gridlocked. Please use the space below and on the reverse for any further comments you might think useful for the Parish Council and the Planning Inspector to consider.

• Cranleigh/Dunsfold area is being targeted purely because it has no green belt protection (admitted by developers at public meeting in Cranleigh Village Hall). Our planners have allowed this to over-ride all logical reasons against large scale development. They are also ignoring the facts that the sewerage system and Cranleigh Waters cannot cope, and that the narrow lanes in the area are regularly clogged with traffic trying to avoid the A281 and Guildford. • I have lived in Cranleigh for more than 15 years. I have never secured paid employment within Cranleigh despite my best efforts, I do not think that the opportunities exist in this small community. To support the level of housing proposed Cranleigh needs a direct link to major employment areas, the bus on the current road network does not meet this need, neither would the ridiculously proposed guided bus, no railway (light or otherwise), no development. I work 30 miles from my home as I imagine most of the proposed residents would, I do not shop locally, I stop on the way home rather than make a special journey, even a local one. I use cheaper chain stores closer to my work, absolutely necessary with the cost of housing and significant transport costs I incur every month. If I could find a suitable job locally I would use the local shops more, at the moment it is just not possible. Recent developments have had a negative impact on me. In 2014 I was assaulted by a visitor to one of the new developments. Had these developments not existed I think that the assault would not have taken place. I am not naïve enough to think that crime does not exist in our village, however the level of the proposed number of houses will bring a large number of non-local people to our village and change its character forever. I have lived in large cities and recognize that there are benefits in the anonymity of them. However, that anonymity was lost when I came to Cranleigh and I believe that was of benefit to me and Cranleigh. I have volunteered locally and enjoy living within Cranleigh and its village atmosphere and have got to know a number of nice people. I understand that some people would also wish to live in Cranleigh and benefit from the surrounding countryside and other amenities. However the scale of development proposed would change the character of Cranleigh to its detriment and it would no longer be the place they hoped to move to but something else entirely. • In summary the whole planning application and explanation process has been done badly and almost secretly. I cannot understand how any local authority can believe that Cranleigh can support an additional 1,500 households without first insisting on improvements and additions to local schools, surgeries, roads, non-road transport, water supplies, waste removal including sewage. • As some new housing is obligatory. Type and density should be a priority. No building of quantity until infrastructure is greatly improved especially roads, sewage, school capacity. Should be building on brownfield rather than fields adjacent to the village. Half the number of houses proposed would be more than adequate. • I feel that the green belt and conservation areas desperately need to be protected for our wildlife. Habitats to be saved and enable continuation of rare breeds. It is imperative that local residents are consulted clearly on plans and infrastructure details, sewage, roads etc desperately need careful attention. • The infrastructure improvements (delivery plan) appears to be totally inadequate to meet the needs of the proposed number of dwellings to place in Cranleigh. The infrastructure, notably sewage treatment, flood relief and transport links proposed are totally inadequate. To adequately upgrade the roads would involve major construction works which would cause major disruption to surrounding settlements, e.g. A281 through Bramley and Shalford. There are no rail links to Cranleigh unlike the other three major settlements in Waverley. The proposed infrastructure improvements to the A281 are totally inadequate to cope with the amount of traffic that would be generated by the number of dwellings proposed. Planning consents have already been granted for large new developments in Cranleigh without adequate provision for upgrading the sewage systems and flood relief systems. Cranleigh has suffered from flooding in the past from both storm water and sewage. I accept that some new development is needed, particularly affordable housing and provision for self build homes but the level of development proposed in the plan is unsustainable in Cranleigh with the infrastructure that we have. • Planning permission should not be given to Crest Nicholson. They were featured on BBC TV on 14/09/16 (Rip off Britain). They do not keep their promises. Also Nightingales have had a series of flood incidents over the last 2/3 years and things will only get worse with global warming. Real sewage problems in Cranleigh. Sainsburys has smell of sewage in hot weather. Bottlenecks on most of our roads and they are very crowded at peak times. Cranleigh supermarkets of modest size and many prefer to go to Tescos at Broadbridge Heath or Waitrose and Sainsburys in Godalming. Road to Godalming narrow country road with sharp bends – dangerous in winter. What happens if there is a large settlement at Dunsfold. Builder may think that everything will be on site and residents will not use their cars, but in reality this is rubbish. Developers all say that new residents will be encouraged to cycle everywhere. If this really does happen then there will be carnage on the country lanes with all these cyclists and extra cars. No employment for a large influx in population therefore rush hour will be unbearable. Area around Knowle Nursing Home should be regarded as green belt as it is enjoyed by many country loving Cranleigh residents. How on earth was Amlets Lane development approved? Narrow country lane where there were a number of accidents earlier in the year. Road over to Shere a nightmare. Planning permission refused at glasshouses – doesn’t this count as greenfield? Waverley obviously prefer to build on our greenfields. • I consider Waverley are dumping the majority of their housing requirements unfairly on Cranleigh without consideration of the local environment and infrastructure. No trunk roads in or out of village. No provision for discharge of increased sewage. No station. Inadequate parking. Disproportionate number of houses being planned for Cranleigh when compared with the size and location of other larger towns and communities in Waverley and is not acceptable. • Is it not time to consider how angry the people of Cranleigh are? We do not want or need this mass development. No-one is against building some affordable housing but most of the development is pure greed with huge mansions being built on every available green space. This is wrong and must be stopped before rural England is covered in concrete and destroyed. The number of houses being proposed is completely disproportionate to those being built elsewhere in Surrey. • WBC’s Local Plan part 1 allocates 1,520 new houses without planning for infrastructure, flooding, sewage provision, school expansion. The A281 is already at breaking point during rush hour as it is the link road between Horsham and Guildford. There are poor travel options as Cranleigh has no train service so cars are the main method of transport. • My answers aren’t meant to seem as flippant as I am sure they do. My concerns are not about fearing change for the sheer pressure what will be placed on a weak infrastructure; transport, schools, medical – when do these receive the funds and consideration they already need let alone after the housing. And maybe we could get the most basic of them all sewage attended to first. We need houses we have to have them in Cranleigh but how many will be affordable? • The number of proposed houses that Waverley thinks Cranleigh can support is completely unsustainable. Our local roads are already overloaded with traffic, there is insufficient local employment to cater for the proposed increase in population, so people will have to travel elsewhere, adding to congestion. Problems with sewerage and drainage are well documented. Some increase in housing may be justified, but not to become the second highest number in Waverley. Our lovely village will be ruined. • Cranleigh has just about enough play space and fields to meet the six acre standard with the planned developments. However if Surrey County Council develop at the Junior School and the C of E Infants School and build a new school at Glebelands, it is unlikely that they will continue to meet the standard. Glebelands has a community use agreement and this is essential to meet the need. It does not look feasible to drain the extra land needed. None of the sports pavilions in Cranleigh currently meet the standards of their governing bodies of sport. If we are to meet the health agenda, significant improvements are needed. • Although I live in Rudgwick, I work in Cranleigh and have family in Dunsfold and Loxhill. The plan combines excessive housing in Cranleigh together with a new housing estate on Dunsfold Aerodrome where there is insufficient transport infrastructure to cope with both. The rural nature of the area will be destroyed by over population with lack of amenities provided in the plan. Consideration has not been taken of the years of construction and disruption with contamination of the natural environment lost forever. This is not Waverley, this is not Surrey. • I do believe that any development in Dunsfold Park should be part of the solutions available to Cranleigh, Alfold and Dunsfold. The Wey and Arun Canal re-generation could help with Cranleigh’s flooding issues. Generating electricity using Cranleigh’s sewage problem on a site incorporated in the Dunsfold Park plan could help also. Dunsfold Park could be a transport hub connecting Horsham/Crawley/Gatwick to Cranleigh/Godalming/Guildford/ Heathrow and later Ashford Kent (Eurotunnel). The age of the car is nearing its limits of sustainability – other options need to be considered. Good inter borough links are needed – avoiding the need to travel through the main towns to get from one side of the borough to the other Guildford – Milford – Farnham/Cranleigh – Haslemere. • Bring back our locality office to the library in the foyer. • Please consider why more money is being spent by Shamley Green – Hascombe, Dunsfold and Godalming in saying no to Dunsfold expansion – who is greasing whose palm. Why is Cranleigh the fall guy picking up loads of houses and unsuitable infrastructure. • No real public consultation. • In 2014 the Planning Committee of Cranleigh Parish Council voted 3 to 1 to accept the Amlets Lane development application. 4 other Councillors were absent the composition of the Committee has now changed and it is agreed that this application should not have been recommended. Also at WBC JPC meeting in 2014 the vote was very close and many Councillors were absent. Those that did not live in the areas voted for the application so protecting their areas from development, this is not local democracy. • Again – no public consultation or proper consideration of infrastructure provision. • Why is Cranleigh being chosen for greatest building expansion? Do very high value homes have any bearing on this decision. • The infrastructure delivery plan states several projects including buildings on the parish tennis courts and current parish offices. The Parish Council or Cranleigh residents have not been consulted to my knowledge. Dunsfold transport plan states buses Dunsfold to Cranleigh will be every 15 minutes. They will be every 30 minutes to Guildford. Bearing this in mind it is apparent Dunsfold new town will be heavily reliant on Cranleigh providing just about all their shops, medical, school and other services. Dunsfold are funding projects all the way to Guildford on the A281 and including Guildford gyratory system. Nothing has been offered to Cranleigh. Put in place the infrastructure to cope with huge volumes of Dunsfold’s residents using Cranleigh when Cranleigh is also being made to take at least 1,520 new dwellings too. • This document does not cover the infrastructure requirements. Cranleigh is being used by Waverley to conform to housing needs due to lack of control on green belt. Cranleigh will soon be a slum town – no road plan, no sewage plan, no flood plan, drainage. Where do these all expect to work. Cranleigh has no industry. Thousands will have to stand on overcrowded trains. 1966 – train service destroyed. 2016 – no train service for thousands of extra houses. Destruction of a wonderful village. • A full environmental impact study is needed plus a full water cycle study. Review of green belt reclassification of Dunsfold airfield from brown field to what it should be to retain its amenity value. • I find it very suspicious that the area which has most to lose by the large housing allocation was the one main area not consulted. Reeks of bad practice. • As a church, we are most concerned about the whole health of all residents – spiritual, social, physical etc.. I am not convinced that enough thought has been given to helping people with good meeting spaces, community facilities etc.. I am also concerned that there will be sufficient affordable housing. And has any thought been given to the settlement of Syrian (and other) refugees? Is it possible to speak to the developers about this? Thank you for this opportunity. • Re Hewitts industrial estate (threadneedle development) this is by some way the biggest existing brown field site – the space it offers should therefore be considered first and all properties included in the Waverley Local Plan. Do not allow more millionaire homes before more affordable houses are built – Ewhurst old development. Proper consideration must be given to business development in the town to discourage becoming a dormitory town. Elmbridge Road has two construction which impose practical limits on what additional traffic could be accommodated. • Water and sewage issues. How can Cranleigh possibly cope with all the extra traffic and sewage problems, all the new houses will create. Also schools/ health centre. Pressure on current resources. • My main concern is the lack of highways. There will be no money for bypasses around Cranleigh, so the only way to get cars off the road is to make linked-up buses throughout the area. Cycling is not an option due to British weather, the ageing population, transport of young children, and the fact that cycling on our local roads is dangerous. • My general feeling about the Local Plan is that WBC have identified the issues but have not demonstrated that they have solutions, for example to flood risks or upgrading of the sewerage network and treatment plant. The duty to consult has been given lip service in the sense that there has been no public meetings on the Local Plan in Cranleigh. • We vote for Councillors to serve our interests on matters that are important to us. The residents of Cranleigh have been let down by the complete lack of consultation from WBC. Cranleigh is in danger of having its village character and ethos destroyed, and being replaced by a town, to the detriment of its residents. With this disproportionately high level of housing in Cranleigh, inevitably street parking will be revised to help with traffic flows. Trade in the local independent shops that rely on people being able to park outside will be badly affected and Cranleigh runs the risk of being turned into another chain store town. This must not happen. With regard to the development behind Cranleigh High Street (Sainsburys) I understand the proposal is for the first seventy houses to be built with their only car access being Knowle Lane. There are already lengthy delays in pulling out of Knowle Lane into the High Street which are exacerbated by people pulling in and out of the tyre garage close to the High Street and the large lorries that use Knowle Lane. This problem needs to be addressed. • Cranleigh is already named as the largest village in the UK but it still retains a village ethos and character. With this level of proposed housing, the village will become a town and much of its rural character will disappear. This must not happen. • Of the 1520 dwellings allocated as Cranleigh’s requirement 40& are due to be affordable. This provides 608 affordable homes. Cranleigh does not need this number nor anywhere near it. Dunsfold Aerodrome, with 2600 units would provide another 1040 and with 1800 units another 720. Considering that the local MP stated that I think that we do need about a hundred or so more affordable homes in Cranleigh on brownfield sites, but no more in Cranleigh Conservatives election material for the May 2015 elections. So why should we require at least 1328 affordable homes. This number should be adjustable in order to maintain a balanced society. And Waverley has reported that housing need is not focused on this part of the borough. • I would like WBC to adopt the rigour and diligence in its planning that Cranleigh Parish Council is showing in its efforts to inform and consult with the inhabitants of Cranleigh. • Moderate development with secured funding for supporting infrastructure would be a sensible way forward for Cranleigh with affordable housing given priority. Otherwise the village will be sacrificed to WBC’s slavish following of abstract numerical targets. They have a duty to co-operate with national framework not a duty to agree it blindly. Transport congestion, flood risk, sewage overload, erosion of green space all factors which should force WBC to protect the areas we live as if all the proposed development sites go ahead, there will be no green space with public rights of way in open fields – paths I currently use all the time for leading walking for health walks in Cranleigh. • Whilst I appreciate that new housing is needed for both young people and for older people needing to down size, more thought needs to be put into the basics of water, sewerage, electricity, plus doctors and schools. I am not opposed to growth, but it needs much more careful planning.

1. Do you feel that you have been consulted appropriately regarding the local plan growth for Cranleigh?

Yes 5 No 45 No answer 1

2. Do you think that the Local Plan has been positively prepared?

Yes 2 No 41 No answer 8

3. Do you think that the Local Plan is justified?

Yes 6 No 39 No answer 6

4. Do you think that the Local Plan is effective?

Yes 0 No 45 No answer 6

5. Do you think that the Local Plan is consistent with National Policies?

Yes 3 No 33 No answer 15

6. Do you think that the Local Plan is legally compliant?

Yes 1 No 30 No answer 20 7. Do you think that the Local Plan has complied with the duty to cooperate

Yes 3 No 39 No answer 9