Cranleigh CofE Primary School
The news plans WOULD fit onto the current site – but at what cost?
In their presentation recently Surrey County Council (SCC ) showed a strong business case for selling the 2 sites of the school and building a new combined school and nursery on a playing field. Cranleigh Society has great concerns about this plan.
SCC explained that their professionals compared the costs of the new build, including the sale of the land for housing, with refurbishing the current school, and bringing a new build onto the Junior site for the infants and nursery. The cost was shown as almost double the plans and no income stream. So we do understand!
BUT
Cranleigh Society has been shown the way that the new, eco-friendly, expanded school plans would fit well onto the current Cranleigh CofE school site.
This desktop exercise was carried out by a retired architect with plenty of experience of working with councils on schools. Living in Cranleigh and walking around all the sites he knows what he is looking at first hand.
It shows that a new build on the existing site would achieve the following –
maintain and improve access to the school and nursery.
Incorporate all the features of the new build eco-friendly plans – Infants, Juniors, extra classes, nursery and SEND unit, and a pond.
It suggests using the playing fields as playing fields rather than building on both sites. Any improvements to the fields’ drainage necessary should be done.
Financially it would require funds that we are very aware SCC has not allocated for education in Cranleigh. Is this really acceptable?
Having declared a climate emergency SCC should not be allowing green fields and trees to be destroyed as a matter of overarching policy – same for all building projects going forwards.
We know too that the new housing on the 2 school sites is in Waverley’s Local Plan and therefore has to be in Cranleigh’s Neighbourhood plan – this does not make it right.
Access to the new build on the playing fields would be difficult for all, cycles, scooters, cars and pedestrians, and the site is out of sight, tucked away from view, and would be a haven for unwanted behaviour around its perimeter. See our picture…
In addition the increased people, cars and therefore pollution caused by building on both sites is unwanted by Cranleigh people.
Rowland Road and Parsonage Road are narrow, and the path from the corner where they join and bend around, and where all school traffic and pedestrians would have to go is more narrow and cannot be widened.
PLEASE COMMENT BELOW as we depend on your feedback – we are representing you as best we can.
We want a fair and speedy result here – and so does the school and nursery.
thank you
SCC’s “strong case” has clearly shown this is ALL ABOUT MONEY as far as they’re concerned. No, thoughts about concern for climate change and impact on community and the safety of the children In respect of traffic, and pollution – no mention of potential flooding and no mention of impact for existing residents. This is highlighted by the absence of any mention of the impact of another 90 houses will have on the existing residents, the village as a whole and it’s infrastructure.
Access to houses at the top of Church Lane or Dewlands Close would be incredibly difficult and dangerous – an accident(s) waiting to happen. Both roads are single file for at least part of their length. In addition, houses currently under construction in Cranleigh are struggling to be sold. Why should the proposed houses be any different. Bang goes SCC’s profit!!
Cranleigh people do not need any more houses, despite what the developers would have you believe. In any cases they don’t build affordable houses which are in short supply in the UK generally, they build expensive ones that give them a profit. Don’t use our schools as an excuse for more!
I have no doubt that the school should remain on it’s present site even if financially it is more expensive. Cranleigh cannot take any more new housing, The new site is very wet and floods during heavy rain (as did all the sites currently being built on). The access is unsuitable, Cars will be parked on the High Street causing even more chaos than already exists during peak times as parents will try to use the narrow footpath from the Common.
When SCC compare their costs what value do they place on the loss of green fields and the inherrent loss of wildlife or maybe they don’t! Cranleigh does not need more houses, traffic, pollution. It does need employment opportunities that are local. It doesn’t need another field disappearing to be used as a semi private nursing home either.