Waverley Borough Council is to decide Berkeley Homes application WA/2014/0912 for 425 homes in Cranleigh on 28th October. The Planning Officers are recommending approval in this report, despite many unresolved access issues and a significant objection from the Environment Agency. The community are feeling as though they are being bulldozed into accepting this application, by both local councillors (Parish Council chairman on BBC) or indeed by Waverley officers. Local Friends of the Earth have also lobbed in a detailed and well argued objection on flooding access and policy (the sequential test) grounds which is also pretty convincing. Friends of the Earth seem convinced that Waverley have interpreted the guidance wrongly to favour Berkeley’s assessments:
“As a result of this approach WBC officers have made it considerably easier for Berkeleys to claim the site passes the sequential test. We are convinced this approach is wrong and we can see no policy justification for it.”
Was this just in relation to interpreting Govt Policy? I think not. Documents recently released, of a meeting between Waverley and the developers advisors on 9th July, seem to be written to show Barry Lomax, Planning Officer of Waverley BC to be particularly bullish and sympathetic to enabling the development. In Policy terms Waverley have no Policy on affordable housing requirements outside a settlement boundary/on green fields, as this is normally a case for refusal. So an officer suggesting to the developer to just “provide some affordable and it will get through” is pretty rich. He should be saying “I can’t take this to Councillors without you providing exceptional affordable housing”. How weak is the leadership here?
Perhaps we should be rethinking the Community Facility being provided as a cash sum too. The notes of this meeting go on, with Barry Lomax reassuring the developers over the Local Plan, saying that Cranleigh needs to get used to 825 new houses being built pretty sharpish. He also has choice words for Councillors, saying he “would make members aware of the risks if members sit on the application.” That sounds like a pretty bold threat. What are the risks? That the development would flood regardless? Nope. That planning might not be granted, especially if Dunsfold comes forward soon. Nope, he forgets to discuss that site completely. Or the risk that in an exceptional planning application such as this – the community would be fine at being given less than the acceptable amount of affordable housing? If they refuse it a win on Appeal will be certain? Barry confirmed the enormity of this application – there are no schemes of a comparable size – this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get the best for Cranleigh through planning gain.. or Waverley help Berkeley’s deliver the most profit. Doing their best to water down the affordable housing – now mooted at less than 30% is shameless.
But is shouldn’t have got to this situation! This is a major development – a £140 million project with a £28 million profit for Berkeleys. There is still so much that is undecided in this application, from affordable housing to flooding and highways. When I was Planning Portfolio holder we had a public pre-application event for major applications that went a long way to thrashing out the issues. These Development Control Consultative Forums brought together all the key consultees, (such as the Environment Agency) and gave councillors an input at an early stage, such that a list of issues was discussed in public rather than by officers behind closed doors. It was webcast, recorded, minuted, with follow up notes and all sorts of ways of engaging all parties. What happened to this system? Quietly scrapped by the very Tories that are crying foul right now. They know whats best for their community, so trust them to handle this one just fine.
A collage of flooded access routes taken from the Friends of the Earth Wallingford Hydro report
————————————————-
My objection submitted to Waverley: I object on flooding, access and viability grounds.
A sequential test of all Waverley’s sites must be carried out – if this is a borough wide housing need number then the test for suitable sites must also be made accordingly. This would show there were better sites to come forward before this site, thus eliminating Waverleys need for a 5 year land supply trigger to refuse.
Access – I am concerned about the impact on the Downs Link as a strategic movement corridor. It seems the mitigation might be bollards to limit the sped of pedestrians and cycles – surely inappropriate. Surrey have suggested improvements might be made using Fibredec flooring, but no acknowledgement of this has been made. The cumulative impact of this application will be to reduce the Downs Link to a footpath rather than a potential transport link.
This scheme is financially unviable – not for the affordable housing to drop from 40% to 30% that the community needs, nor for the amount of money the landowner is being ‘enticed’ with (Adams Integra consultants phrase) at £15million.
On a gross of £140million, Berkeleys should be taking a view on their £28million profit in providing maximum S106 contributions, affordable housing and community benefits. Waverley will never achieve their objectively assessed housing need (i.e. social housing) if developments do not contribute fairly to such need. Including bank lending interest at 7.5% as a cost (rather than out of cash-flow, might be the industry norm, but its a painful viability trick).
I disapprove of Barry Lomax’s (WBC) comments that “he would make members aware of the risks if members sit on the application”. (Notes of meetings in July).