Have your Say – support the need for urgent improvements…cranleighhighstreet@surreycc.gov.uk
Cranleigh High Street pavements, kerbs, gutters and drainage are in desperate need of repairs and management – very overdue! The High Street also needs investment to make it fit for the future.
Those who like and approve of the plans, and want to see Cranleigh benefit, have been too quiet and those who oppose are very vocal.
So the whole scheme may be lost – This is simply not good enough.
Surrey County Council is responsible for only parts of the pavements, plus the roads, kerbs, gutters and effective drainage. The pavements outside each shop are the responsibility of the shop owners, (not those who rent from them).
Thames water and others have had to repeatedly dig up and repair so many parts of both areas, it is so unattractive and not very safe for residents.
Where has all the tax money gone? Section 106, CIL and other taxes on developers
The problems identified over the last decade, since the development and expansion of the village, have included that the pavements need to be repaired and Waverley BC and Surrey CC have money to do some of this from the developers.
Government Grants to get us out of our cars and regenerate High Streets
There is other money that the Government may grant if councils can show reduction in traffic and revitalising High Street shops and experience when carrying out changes to High Streets.
But Surrey has applications from other towns especially Farnham and only a scheme that residents are happy with will get the bulk of the money.
Our Councillors and Businesses have done their best to influence and get something credible proposed. The Village Way mini roundabout IS being re-evaluated because of opposition to its removal.
The negative petition will have to be presented to the Surrey Cabinet whilst officers will present the case for the scheme. Residents can write in support, albeit with some reservations, now! All meetings can be watched on line. You can subscribe to be warned of meetings, then to watch either live or after the events – choose your preferences here
Surrey County Council Date 19th December 2pm.
Meeting
Cabinet – Tuesday, 19 December 2023 2.00 pm
The agenda will be displayed in the week before the meeting
Proposed venue: Council Chamber, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate, Surrey ,RH2 8EF
Contact: Huma Younis or Sarah Quinn Email: huma.younis@surreycc.gov.uk
Personal plea from Cranleigh Society Chair –
‘Amid the complaints and comments about the proposals by Surrey County Council to revamp Cranleigh High Street what many seem to have forgotten was that it started with improving the pavement on the South side between Knowle Lane and Village Way. Few would argue with the dreadful state of the pedestrian walkway there and indeed across the village. The problem with simply fixing it is that much of the foot way is owned by the shop property owners who mostly are not the actual shopkeepers of course.
It was never a simple matter.
Councillor Liz Townsend with others sought to make overall improvements that would make the village a more pleasant, attractive and safer place to visit. Sadly the consultant that Surrey employed didn’t seem to truly understand the community and what we love about it. Having spoken with them at the first ‘consultation’ they seemed to rely on computer modelling more than our lived experience. It’s fine to count traffic and pedestrians but the reality of what people really do seemed to elude them.
There Is a real danger that another town, like Farnham, we are told, may get the funding and Cranleigh nothing. Is that really what we want?
The latest is that the vociferous rebellion has sent the planners back to think again. We are told the Village Way roundabout will now remain. But rumour is a vicious thing.
We are reliably told that the emergency services actually had no problem with the plans, and also that the Horseshoe Lane roundabout is actually not part of the High Street plan at all, but entirely separate.
The moral is we need to be sensible, logical and not emotional and accept that not everything can stay the same.’
The High Street proposals offered by our SCC Councillor and planners have been rejected by Cranleigh people. I spoke to two Waverley BC Councillors who told me they couldn’t find anyone in favour of the proposals. The Parish Council objected to the plans too on behalf of the community. The Cranleigh Society moto is: – “Speaking up for Cranleigh” so my expectations are they would put forward the residents point of view too. The function of a roundabout is to improve the flow of traffic. Those that experienced the problems with the previous priority junctions in the High Street were very relieved and happy with the improvements the roundabouts provided. The S106 funding for the High Street/Horseshoe lane roundabout I believe are from the Longhurst development which is miles away. I believe the original improvement plans didn’t involve removing the roundabout but simply strengthening the kerb where it curves into the western side of the roundabout. Indeed I believe the High Street improvements started with the proposed closure of the road at weekends outside the Onslow. Residents generally appeared in agreement with this weekend closure but raised concerns regarding loss of free parking spaces. It seemed then in some quarters that an opportunity was seen to be available to propose vast areas of pedestrianisation and removal of free parking the length of the High Street. The plans proposed fail to include alternative infrastructure to move traffic around. For example Godalming pedestrianisation included a bypass road, Flambard way (A3100). Cars are an important method of travel and will soon be a sustainable method of travel as electrification etc is rolled out. Many peoples lives depend on car travel so it must be catered for and included in any future travel plans.
I agree with Steve all the way – but we do need to keep Surrey preparing to fix our High Street!
Whilst everybody in Cranleigh would agree that gutters, pavements, potholes in Cranleigh High Street need attention I would argue that this is what we pay our Council Tax for. S106 money which in effect is a bribe to allow the thousands of new homes to be built in Cranleigh should not be used for street maintenance. The current High Street Development plan is undemocratic being largely based on the ideas of a small group of people. It is totally focused on reducing traffic in the Village. I would accept that the vast majority of residents would like Cranleigh to have less traffic but with no feasible way of bi-passing the High Street, reducing the width of the road, installing a large speed bump in the centre of the village, removing much on-street parking, narrowing the bus laybys so that buses will obstruct the road will lead to more congestion, more pollution and have a potentially devasting impact on the businesses in Cranleigh when many people go elsewhere to shop. Shame on the Society for encouraging people to support these plans, they need a radical rethink.
The only good thing I found at the recent presentation was that the post office turn around will stay. I am concerned about the raised platform from Knowle Lane up to Sainsbury which I was told will calm traffic. I pointed out that we are already reduced to 20 mph. The thought that this pedestrianised portion will allow people to have priority over the motor vehicle is I think extremely dangerous. With the road narrowing I understand that the 2 islands opposite M & S and the little chemist shop will also disappear. So if one has shopping bags where do I cross over safely. The proposed removal of mini roundabout at village way will cause huge tailbacks into the car park. There will be no priority as there is now and one will be reliant on traffic giving way and allowing you out. The tailbacks into Cranleigh are often well up the Horsham Road where inflowing traffic has to give way to Ewhurst volumes. Similarly coming back into Cranleigh I often fond myself in a queue back at the cricket ground main roundabout. If the suggested pedestrianisation occurs hold ups will be even worse. I have with tongue in cheek suggested that my best way out of Cranleigh will be to turn south and down to Rudgewick so that I can turn right onto the A281 to go north. I feel sorry for the shop owners by the Onslow with 3 possible days of closure; it is all very well stating that there is plenty of room in the Car Parks but if you visit the village on a daily basis then a weekly charge of however much is a further imposition on household budgets. Why not spend some money on Stockland Square and make it a far more attractive place to sit – there used to be a lovely fountain/flower beds – now it is just a wind tunnel.
Sadly Cranleigh has been put upon by Waverly where we have had only a modest voting right against the other larger Councils. Hence vast new building has taken place here and surprise surprise traffic volumes have risen accordingly. Some will say this is negative but I am sadly not impressed with the proposals. Where and what are the improvements?
I have to agree with the comments from other people, especially in that the road/drainage and footpath repairs should already be covered under the many taxes we pay at both local and national level, secondly I feel very strongly, and I know it’s not part of the scheme to ‘improve’ our village, about the proposal to remove the roundabout at the Horseshoe lane junction, it’s utterly ridiculous to even consider going back to a T junction and will cause chaos for traffic trying to join the high street- there is a large amount of traffic going to and from both Cranleigh School and St Josephs plus all other local traffic using that route, has anyone considered the tail backs into the high street from traffic turning into Horseshoe lane? I think the Society should be campaigning on this alongside the village scheme- after all it’s in ALL of our interests to ease traffic flow NOT make it worse.