I keep hearing that the reason we have so much development being approved in and around Cranleigh is because we have no Green Belt protection.
I had thought that the green belt was there to protect exceptional countryside, however recently I discovered that it’s a planning policy to prevent urban sprawl and can end up protecting countryside of quite low environmental value.
“Green Belt policy was established in 1955 primarily to stop urban sprawl. There are now 14 separate areas of Green Belt that cover 13% of England; mostly open land and countryside around the largest or most historic towns and cities.” – Taken from CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England) website.
When I take my daily walk on the Surrey Hills I can’t help but feel that the stunning landscape around Cranleigh deserves equal protection, and that the countryside beyond the green belt is under huge threat like never before. Because of green belt planning policy, development is being pushed further out into open countryside and on to valuable farmland, with little or no infrastructure, and far from employment opportunities.
I am quite aware that there are pros and cons to the argument for a green belt review in Waverley, however I think that this difficult and emotive topic needs to be fully addressed immediately by an official forum made up of elected representatives and members of lobby groups, residents groups etc, before Waverley’s local plan dumps half of the borough’s housing allocation in an unsustainable location in and around Cranleigh, which makes no planning sense to me at all.
Stable doors and horses come to mind! Our ‘protection’ is supposed to be the wisdom of our Borough and Parish Councillors, and they are having a very hard time a they are caught between a rock and a hard place! the only way we will stop this aggressive development policy is to make a real nuisance of ourselves. The level of apathy, of ‘sorry I’m too busy’ or ‘you’ll never be able to stop them so why bother?’ is far too high.
How do we make the population of Cranleigh realise, (a) what is happening, and (b) that they ALL need to write/email/phone our Councillors and our MP. Apart from taking ‘direct action’ I cannot think of another way of making our voices heard.
Good article. Yes, greenbelt is merely a designation for planning purposes; I also used to think that the greenbelt designation pertains to protection of countryside of outstanding landscape and/or ecological value, but this is not so. Countryside Beyond the Greenbelt can be more valuable in terms of biodiversity/ecology and landscape value/natural beauty as some greenbelt-designated countryside. Over the months and years I have amassed a lot of video and photographic evidence of wildlife (includes legally protected species such as bats,as well as some UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species) in a particular greenfield.
I was considering devoting some of my spare time to litter picking on Cranleigh’s greenfields and the Downs Link, to benefit the community and the local environment, but considering that WBC view Cranleigh’s greenfields as a dumping ground for development, I don’t think I will bother.
Well said. Looking back at recent events, the characteristics of the development debate were set out by a newspaper article. The likely tone of that article in the Farnham Herald (4th February) was set by its headline – “Dunsfold deadline officially expires” – since, at casual glance, most readers assumed that it is too late to object and that simply is not the case. Such massaging of the reality has, in part contributed, to the seemingly lethargic response by those who object to the plonking of a GU6 NEW TOWN in rural Surrey. Factors that have affected the number of responses to the Planning Application are detailed below but please accept that the quality of input should also be taken into account; most of the Objections are well considered and outnumber the proponents significantly.
Battle Weariness. It is but 8 years since debilitating campaign led to an Inquiry that rejected the then proposal to build 2601 houses. A decision that was not only upheld by the Secretary of State but also our two local MPs.
Wrong-Footed. The developer submitted the planning application just before Christmas 2015 at a time when most people’s minds were engaged with more joyous thoughts. This clearly delayed getting a protest movement into gear.
Apathy. Superimposed on the above factors has been the relentless exploitation of questionable statistics that has led folk to believe the proposal is a fait accompli. For example much currency has been given to a survey that drew a response from 3.3% of the electorate, 80% of whom voted in favour of the NEW TOWN – that does not have the ring of democracy – the more so since the 80% is frequently quoted as a justification for proceeding. Another democratically questionable claim has been that 951 people in the so called ‘area of interest’ + 74 stakeholders had been invited to a briefing event by the developer. Who were these people? As a resident of Dunsfold I can say that I have only met one person who attended and even he was not graced with a formal invitation.
Benign Presentations. The public has been treated to a series of ‘soft focus’ depictions of the GU6 NEW TOWN including an artist’s impression that shows the high density housing in the background and the low density in the foreground with a sprinkling of fully grown fluffy deciduous trees (the crescent of 18 metre high blocks and the 30 metre twin towers are less easily seen!). In similar vein the developer has treated the public to comforting wide angle lens photographs that really do not show the project for what it truly is – a blot on the landscape. Another smart presentational move has been to include Dunsfold in the project’s title when, in reality, the development will have a far greater impact on the quality of life in Cranleigh and Alfold and on the luckless A281 commuters.
Industrial Estate. The developer over recent years has assiduously, but quietly, expanded the Industrial Estate to allow for a claim that the estate is now a major employer and that housing is essential to sustain that expansion. This has led to ‘in support’ submissions to Waverley Borough Council like: I live in Woking, work on Dunsfold aerodrome and therefore need a house near to my place of work. This is hardly meeting a local need and is a commute of 16 miles unreasonable? With an average of 6 different jobs in a working life can we expect that the requirement to be near a place of work will occur another five times.
Employment. Associated with the Industrial Estate issue is the claim that more jobs will arise. Well we know that it currently houses a nursery and a large international transport company. The site sports 740,912 sq ft floor area whereas Heathrow T5 – the largest free-standing structure in the United Kingdom- is 750,000 sq ft in plan area which is an interesting comparison for those concerned about the rural ‘feel’ of Surrey. One further questions arises: What additional employment would a proposed Warehouse offer? I guess the answer to that is little but lots more HGV movement.