High Street is restricted at both ends (east and west) and difficult to extend More jobs and affordable homes needs for young people More public car parking needed, especially on Thursdays All traffic onto High Street alternative needed and better link to A281 – Noted some infrastructure has capacity: Local schools overcrowded but Glebelands School is under capacity Doctors surgery/health centre has sufficient GPs and spare capacity SS referred to top left of plan circulated at meeting and explained these were his – personal views/ideas for development of Cranleigh: Concerned about traffic/parking and links to the High Street, homes for young people, jobs, flooding and beds at Cranleigh Hospital JS outlined that locals want village to stay as it is. Need to consider jobs as well as – homes. Access to shops important use it or lose it. Concerned that High Street full – of coffee and charity shops development is needed to help village evolve. – Community land trust homes needed as even affordable homes are expensive in Cranleigh. AY development requires a strategic approach to properly reflect local feeling. – SCC has been looking strategically at infrastructure for some time and is keen that transport infrastructure is addressed and not made worse by development. Cranleigh needs infrastructure to support modern life and jobs to retain young BE – people JR NPPF clear steer to developers to come forward with applications where there – is no up to date plan but this is not a satisfactory situation. Local Plan issues mean it is difficult to tread with any certainty as strategy is unkown difficult to commit but – keen to understand current policy position. MWE Core Strategy previously withdrawn, housing figures based on Surrey – Structure Plan. Currently testing/updating evidence. Report to go to Executive in October to ascertain direction of travel including overall housing number. Still debating how much Dunsfold Park will contribute to housing requirements. Noted that Waverley can’t back the clock’ on developments already granted. Noted ‘wind that whilst there is no plan in place, Cranleigh will need to continue to help the Borough meet the housing need. SS acknowledged that development will happen but wants the best outcome for – Cranleigh. Announced he had stood down from the Joint Planning Committee for considering any further development in Cranleigh. BE reminded the meeting that at present, each application needs to be assessed – on its own merits
High Street is restricted at both ends (east and west) and difficult to extend More jobs and affordable homes needs for young people More public car parking needed, especially on Thursdays All traffic onto High Street – alternative needed and better link to A281 Noted some infrastructure has capacity: Local schools overcrowded but Glebelands School is under capacity Doctors surgery/health centre has sufficient GPs and spare capacity SS – referred to top left of plan circulated at meeting and explained these were his personal views/ideas for development of Cranleigh: Concerned about traffic/parking and links to the High Street, homes for young people, jobs, flooding and beds at Cranleigh Hospital JS – outlined that locals want village to stay as it is. Need to consider jobs as well as homes. Access to shops important – use it or lose it. Concerned that High Street full of coffee and charity shops – development is needed to help village evolve. Community land trust homes needed as even affordable homes are expensive in Cranleigh. AY – development requires a strategic approach to properly reflect local feeling. SCC has been looking strategically at infrastructure for some time and is keen that transport infrastructure is addressed and not made worse by development. BE – Cranleigh needs infrastructure to support modern life and jobs to retain young people JR – NPPF clear steer to developers to come forward with applications where there is no up to date plan but this is not a satisfactory situation. Local Plan issues mean it is difficult to tread with any certainty as strategy is unkown – difficult to commit but keen to understand current policy position. MWE – Core Strategy previously withdrawn, housing figures based on Surrey Structure Plan. Currently testing/updating evidence. Report to go to Executive in October to ascertain direction of travel including overall housing number. Still debating how much Dunsfold Park will contribute to housing requirements. Noted that Waverley can’t ‘wind back the clock’ on developments already granted. Noted that whilst there is no plan in place, Cranleigh will need to continue to help the Borough meet the housing need. SS – acknowledged that development will happen but wants the best outcome for Cranleigh. Announced he had stood down from the Joint Planning Committee for considering any further development in Cranleigh. BE – reminded the meeting that at present, each application needs to be assessed on its own merits
cranleigh-developers.docx