WOE IS WAVERLEY!

OH WOE, WOE AND DOUBLE WOE!

Inspector Bore made his views very clear at the end of the first week of his Inquiry into Waverley Borough Council’s now, not-quite-so-daft looking, Draft Local Plan. And he left no room for equivocation in that, given a choice between having a home and being stuck for a few more minutes in traffic on the A3, he knows what his choice – and the Government’s choice – will be!

Cue deeply indrawn breaths from all those present in the Waverley Council Chamber who are opposed to more development!

Inspector Bore also made it very clear that Waverley’s housing numbers will need to increase!

welcome_developers2.jpg

Cue another collective intake of breath from the anti-development-brigade, spear-headed by Protect Our Waverley (who else?!) and the Man from CPRE (well he would, wouldn’t he?!).

Inspector Bore  indicated that Waverley does not have a five-year housing supply and concurred with the view of a ‘housing forum’, made up of interested developers, that the Council simply cannot rely on a 100% achievement rate because, not only is that undeliverable but unreasonable.

Q: Why?

A: Because no one ever gets a score of 100 / 100. Ergo, Waverley’s housing numbers will have to go up.

Graham Parrott – looking as sick as one – gamely tabled a plan designed to demonstrate how constrained the borough of Waverley is in development terms but Inspector Bore was having none of it. He told the Chamber that Waverley was not nearly as constrained as either Guildford or Woking … Oh, and by the way, Waverley’s going to have to take 50% of Woking’s unmet need!

Forget indrawn breaths, at this point the POW collective nearly choked on theirs! Had they really heard that right? 50%? They thought they had enough to worry over where Waverley was planning to put its existing numbers and now they’re expected to take 50% of another borough’s unmet need! This was beyond their worst nightmares!

Screen Shot 2017-06-29 at 19.24.28.png

But Inspector Bore was in a benevolent mood; he assured those assembled in the Council Chamber that he wasn’t there to hinder them but to help them get their plan adopted. And, in order to help him to help them, the planners needed to go away and think about how and where they might accommodate their – and Woking’s – increased housing need.

Our spider, nearly strangled itself in its own web hanging from the public gallery as it frantically tried to do the animated-spider-image-0157 arithmetic on the back of an envelope, as the day progressed, and reckoned, by the end of it, the numbers are going to be not far south of 600 per annum!

Had they been on hand this was the point that the stretchers would have been rushed into the Council Chamber … but Inspector Bore hadn’t finished. He had some hints, some helpful suggestions, as to how Waverley might go about opening their door to the developers and rolling out the red carpet. Elsewhere, he offered, planners had adopted a policy whereby they decided, all other things being equal, development would be acceptable if it was proposed adjacent to existing development …

It took a few moments for the import of his words to sink in but when they did the blood drained from the faces of those representing the Parish Councils and Protect Our Little Corner …

Was he really suggesting …? Did he honestly think …? Surely not …? He could not possibly mean …

Yep, they got there … eventually! The Inspector was giving Waverley Planners a prod in the ribs – and the Parish Councils and Protect Our Little Corner a massive punch in the gut!

He was actually daring to propose the previously unimaginable: that the villages – and, yes, that’s all of the villages (even the oh, so precious, we are an isolated rural idyll and therefore an exceptional case, villages of Alfold and Dunsfold, Shamley Green, Wonersh, Ewhurst, Elstead, Milford and on it goes around Farnham ) – will  have to take more houses!

Yes, that means every last damn one of them – even the oh-so-precious, we are an isolated rural idyll and therefore an exceptional case villages of Alfold and Dunsfold! It means Alfold, Bramley, Busbridge, Chiddingfold, Compton, Cranleigh, Dunsfold, Enton, Ewhurst, Godalming, Hambledon, Hascombe, Hydestile, Milford, Munstead, Shalford, Witley, Wonersh and everywhere in between.

Not one of them is going to escape unscathed, untouched and any protestations about congestion on the A281 are, we have no doubt, going to be met with the same brisk rebuttal that was delivered with regard to congestion on the A3: both Inspector Bore and the Government consider delivering homes more important than a couple of minutes additional delay on the daily commute!

So, there you have it folks, unless someone, somewhere can pinpoint a large, empty, brownfield site that’s going begging – and, let’s face it, there aren’t too many of those around, are there? – all of the villages are going to have to take a far greater number of houses than they previously imagined – even in their worst nightmares! So much for Protect Our Little Corner’s dastardly plan to push it all onto Cranleigh and Farnham. It would appear to be blowing up in their faces for the Inspector has them in his sights.

Stand by your beds!!! In the Second World War they dug up the cricket pitches to plant vegetables … in 2018 they might be digging them up to pour concrete!

PS Our advice to local Councillors this week-end:

Take the landline off the hook, switch off your mobile phone and ignore your email because when Wild-of-Waverley gets wind of development on their doorstep they’re not going to be pleased. But it’s not Richard Shut-the-Gates, Robert Know-less and Mary Orton-Pett and all those Cranleigh Councillors who did/didn’t attend secret meetings  – the architects of this developing disaster (no pun intended – oh, ok, maybe just a little one!) they’ll be ringing to berate. Oh no, they’re yesterday’s (wo)men. Between them that lot triumvirate have done untold damage to the Borough with their insistence that Waverley, on their watch, behave as if it were an island, a special case, a forbidden fruit where developers crossed the borough line at their peril. Now their chickens look as if they’re coming home to roost, thanks to all those Cranleigh councillors who did/didn’t attend those “secret meetings.” However,  it’s not Shut-the-Gate, Know-less and Mrs MOP the residents will be ringing, its poor old – and those are words we never thought we’d hear ourselves say – Gone-to-Potts and that Dick D’Anus!

PPS Our advice to local would-be-developers:

Pull out those old plans to develop on greenfields and gardens, dust them off and totter down to the hallowed halls of The Burys where Liz-the-Biz-Simms and her planners will greet you with open arms – unfortunately, the red carpet’s not an option due to ‘elf and safety concerns … But never mind, there’s much to celebrate if you’re a would-be-developer in Waverley, cos there’s a Concrete Fest coming to a field, in a village, near all of us!

R.I.P. Local democracy has finally choked on its own dogma and died at ‘Your Waverley.’

In future Waverley Councillors – put your hands up and shut up! You have been warned!

Chairman of the Joint Planning Committee Peter Isherwood rebuked councillors who dared question and speak up for the people they, supposedly, represent.

HE WARNED,  if they wanted to question officer, do it before the meeting.

Translated:

In Private, where the public cannot hear either the questions or answers. 

Why?

“Because,” he said,  ‘we have a considerable number of applications coming before us in the coming weeks that share common ground, and  they will be dealt with together.

Translate:

Just stick up your hand and approve everything. Particularly if it is in Farnham or Cranleigh and the surrounding areas in the East. 

Oh! and, the officers will be going on holiday!  But they are doing their best to provide reports.

In view of the importance of the Local Plan and numerous appeals and public inquiries, we would have thought all leave would have been cancelled – bit like the police, fire brigade and hospital services, in a crisis!

He said, it had to be borne in mind some applicants may not agree with the long consultation period, and may appeal for non-determination.

Translate:  Officers aren’t progressing applications quickly enough!

(Ah! he must mean Thakeham Homes who didn’t even wait  for its application to be considered locally – and is  going  straight to a public inquiry on July 18  for almost 500 homes in Alfold adjacent to Dunsfold airfield.

He warned councillors to “leave their hobby horses at home” and concentrate on  planning criteria.

Translated:

In other words, put your hands up, follow the officers’ recommendations, shut up, put up, and tell the public who elected you – that you might as well pee into the wind for all the notice that is taken of you by the officers or the Chairman.

Oops, we forgot, peeing into the wind will be more appropriate now as ‘YW’ has shut the public lavatories in Farncombe, Godalming and Haslemere! 

He then said: Would you Adam an Eve it!

“I have no wish in any way to curtail debate.”

 Has ‘Your Waverley gone into panic mode this week due to the examination in public of its Local Plan? 

Because a Government Inspector  says  the borough  may be required to take some of Woking’s unmet housing need, and needs to  up its own housing requirements.

Fresh from his foray into Mid Sussex   where he gave a large uplift in housing numbers from 800 a year to well over 1,000, the same Inspector, Jonathan Bore, has ruled  it must accept housing for Brighton,  the South Coast and Crawley.

At the start of a six-day  Inquiry into Waverley’s Local Plan the same Inspector warned Waverley, it too,   would have to accept the unmet needs of other boroughs!


So in future – if it’s green,  doesn’t move, floods every year and the smell of sewage permeates through homes – it really doesn’t matter at all.

Below is a clip of Councillor Isherwood speaking at the Joint Planning Committee on Wednesday:

Thakeham Homes’ controversial application to build 54 homes on the flood plain in Elmbridge Road was postponed for further reports at Wednesday’s planning meeting. Mainly due passionate and hard-hitting representations made by Cranleigh Parish Council/Cranleigh Civic Society and a couple of borough councillors.

It was left to Stewart Stennett; Liz Townsend and Mary Foryszewski to slate the application and for Councillor Stephen Mulliner to call for the postponement.

 Judging by the clip  in future there won’t be much arguing within ‘Your Waverley’ because representing the public’s views  is Verboten!

A  report,  including clips of the decision to postpone will be included in future posts.

 

Just like democracy – the borough of Waverley has been dumped!

WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH!

Yes, we agree with the correspondent below, anything anyone  in ‘Your Waverley’ and ‘Your Surrey,”  say or do in attempt to protect services or the countryside, they are currently being dumped into the local authorities’ recycling bin!

 

So … in addition to shutting the Dump in Cranleigh and forcing people to travel to Witley – they will only be able to do that during the week, when most are at work, not at weekends!

Sign the petition on the link below, for what it’s worth!

Who’s dumping on who this time?

Screen Shot 2017-06-29 at 15.03.07.png

Screen Shot 2017-06-29 at 08.38.38.png

Cranleigh’s ‘Town’ leaders have been asked by ‘Your Waverley’ to…

And, many other towns and villages have been asked to do the same!

  • Screen Shot 2016-12-12 at 20.09.39.pngFind more sites for housing
  • Carry out a Town centre boundary review
  • Define the town’s shop frontages
  • And..

MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL – CARRY OUT A REVIEW OF THE ‘AREA OF SIGNIFICANT VISUAL IMPORTANCE!

 

IN OTHER WORDS:

Review the land it owns – including its sports pitches at Snoxhall.

WHY? Because one of ‘Your Waverley’s ‘ options is  to demolish the existing Leisure Centre extend the car park and build a new leisure centre on the playing fields.

Whoops there goes another green field donated to the town, just like over here in Farnham. Why?   To make way for more money-making enterprises for whom?… You guessed… “Your Waverley.’

Who, now even the Cranleigh Parish Council Chairman, has started to defend! TT’s always stick together, don’t they?

Screen Shot 2017-04-13 at 21.58.00.png

And here’s what they same outfit are doing here in Farnham! And they don’t even bother with planning consents! And, of course ‘Your Waverley’ contravene restrictive planning consents on a Memorial Ground, gifted to the people of Farnham by United Breweries.  Why? Because if ‘YW’ want land on which to build and trouser  some dosh they’ll do it whether Farnham folks, or Cranleigh folks, or Haslemere’s folks, like it or not! And, they will do exactly the same in matter any other town or village they set their sights on! Won’t they?

16649091_10155006792596613_4032250458616254870_n.jpg

What’s the magic number today Waverley Planners?

The number is 54! Yes 54 new houses headed for Elmbridge Road in Cranleigh. The decision will be made tonight (Wed 28th June; 6.30pm) at Waverley’s Joint Planning Committee. We urge you to attend and make your voice heard!

Cranleigh Waters flood warningN.B. The Met Office has just issued a Flood Warning for Cranleigh Waters: “For Cranleigh Waters, the areas affected include Elmbridge, Shamley Green and Bramley and the Littlemead Brook including Cranleigh.”
The map below shows the area between Elmbridge at the top and the blue Littlemead Brook stream at the bottom which is.. subject to tonight’s Planning Application (Planning Ref : WA/2016/1921recommended for Approval by Officers for 54 homes.

Our friends at the Cranleigh Society say: “This entire site was underwater in Dec 2013/Jan 2014 – the road, which was higher than the site, was impassable. In January 2015 about 30%  of the site was flooded. And then there’s the smell from the sewage works..” Thakeham Homes have stated that “odour is not considered to be a constraint to residential development at the site”.

 

elmbridge54

Those three little blue SUD’s will be working overtime!

We agree with the Cranleigh Society – write to Anne Milton, Cranleigh’s MP and ask her to ‘call in’ this outrageous application. Email her on anne.milton.mp@parliament.uk with reference WA/2016/1921 Land South Of Elmbridge Road, Cranleigh – perhaps notice will be taken if lots of people request it!

‘Your Waverley’s’ Local Plan Inspector Calls!

Screen Shot 2017-06-27 at 20.49.21.png

You may, or may not know, that to-day Tuesday   ‘Your Waverley’s Daft Local Plan’ is being  examined by a Government Inspector – Mr Jonathan Bore!

Click on the link below: 

We will say no more!

https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/idoxWAM/doc/Decision-1454972.pdf?extension=.pdf&id=1454972&location=VOLUME2&contentType=application/pdf&pageCount=1

Screen Shot 2017-06-27 at 20.57.10.png

Cranleigh Chamber goes potty about roadworks! Wonder why?

Wasn’t this the same outfit that was calling for more businesses, more homes, and more residents to provide them with …

“More footfall”

Well you know what, ever heard the saying, “You can’t make an omelette without cracking eggs.”

 The moral of the tale?  

Be careful what you wish for!

Oh! Just as a matter interest have all the cafe’s in Cranleigh bar a few including  – the popular Cromwell Tea House, started taking over the pavements, preventing pedestrians from walking freely. Since when did they believe they owned the frontages and pavements as their own personal space for outside eating? Certainly wouldn’t want to be disabled!

 

CCoC2 1.jpeg

Who’s dumping on who this time?

This time it’s ‘Your Surrey’ that’s dumping on ‘Cranleigh New Town.’ And.. Angry of Cranleigh is getting even Angrier!

The revelation  that Surrey County Council is consulting/ has decided to close the Cranleigh Amenity Tip and recycling centre has gone down like … a bucket of sick! And that is underestimating the anger of residents of Ewhurst, Cranleigh and all the surrounding villages that use the site in Elmbridge Road in their droves!’

Screen Shot 2017-06-26 at 08.07.20.png
Just when your Surrey County Council publishes its policy on ‘Ways to reduce our carbon footprint’ – it  decides to increase everyone’s carbon footprint by sending them off in their cars and vans to Witley or Guildford’s Slyfield Industrial Estate.

So The Protect our Little Corner of Waverley Group, which insists the roads across Dunsfold  and Hascombe will be invaded by the inhabitants of Dunsfold Park, will now be invaded by thousands of Cranleigh residents and all those living in the surrounding villages as they make the short cut across to Witley! Right past the home of guess who?

The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt Secretary of State for Health! Toot your horn on the corner of Markwick Lane, Hascombe and let him know you are on your way to Witley Dump!

Dumb (SCC) is definitely getting dumber by the day!

Here’s its latest Mantra. We have said it before on this site, we will, no doubt have good reason,  to say it again…

YOU COULDN’T MAKE IT UP!

Surrey County Council’s policy: Ways to reduce carbon footprint
One of the most common ways to reduce the carbon footprint of humans is to drive less where possible travelling to a ‘close- by’ rather than far away destinations. Not only is a person going to save money on fuel, but they will be burning less and releasing fewer emissions into the atmosphere.

So what are  residents’ threatening?

To dump all their rubbish at the gates of the tip on the day the site is closed.  By lunchtime the road will be a seething mass of rubbish and the 50 tonne trucks will be forced to find another route onto Cranleigh’s ever-growing band of building sites. 

Has anyone told Councillor Andrew Povey, the newly elected county councillor for Cranleigh and Ewhurst. If not start contacting him right now – let him notch up a victory by keeping the Cranleigh dump open or he might find himself dumped along with all th other superfluous household rubbish!

Shaping Surrey’s Community Recycling Centres – 2017 – Surrey County Council – Citizen Space

 SIGN THE PETITION HERE

 

Dumb and getting Dumber?

No doubt Alfold folk  are aware of an important Public Inquiry for a shed-load  of housing proposed by Thakeham  Homes/Merchant Seaman’s War Memorial Society, on the countryside around the village.  If you haven’t  received letter/s then you are among the lucky ones…. because most people have had more than one..two…three…

even… 25!

Here’s a comment from one of our followers, who becomes more and more disillusioned with ‘Your Waverley’ every day that goes by! It’s enough to take your breath away. She says:-

NOT REALLY FUNNY!

But I did have to laugh this morning when I saw a pile of post – and guess what? We had 25 … YES TWENTY-FIVE letters from Waverley regarding the Public Inquiry for the Thakeham Homes development at the Springbok Estate. This is where our Council Tax money goes!!

Screen Shot 2017-06-24 at 13.43.40.png

And…. perfect timing or what… the poor devils over there on the Surrey/Sussex border won’t know which way to go – to Cranleigh Art Centre to hear an Inspector hear why Care Ashore wants to build:

  • 60 unit independent living facility with 20 associated bungalows.
  • 125 dwellings.
  • shop.
  • cafe.
  • sports facilities
  • Outline application for 275 dwellings
  • care home
  • and primary school

OR on the very same day go to Godalming Council Offices to hear the Dunsfold Park Planning Inquiry for 1,800 homes.

They really are spoilt for choice! 

Answers on a postcard please: Which of these two Public Inquiries  will the Protect Our Little Corner of Waverley Group rock up to? 

A lake-inside development going to Cranleigh? Huge housing development coming to Farnham… on even more green fields?

What does  the Protect Our Waverley Group have to say about these two major applications. Nothing; nada; nic; niente; nimic; ekkert; rien; gar nichts;….

WHY? Because these two sites are on green fields – one of which is often under water adjacent to the Cranleigh Waters and the Wey and Arun Canal and where the man trapped in the blue car, pictured below almost died!

Watch here for yourself, the section, Elmbridge Road, with the site under consideration in Flood Zone 2 and 3, completely submerged. and then watch  the Waverley Wally’s give it the go-ahead!

 

 Waverley Planners are recommending that the Joint Planning Committee (which now boasts only two Cranleigh members,) grants consents for 55 houses in Elmbridge Homes (Thakeham Homes/Stovolds Hill Farm Ltd.) Another on land West of Green Lane, Badshot Lea for up to 105 dwellings. (Lampoon Developments.)

In Farnham  the recommendation is for approval of the outline and access only, with all matters reserved! Oh!  by the way,  two and a half storeys (actually three) on this development, is quite acceptable, say officers, as  they “add visual interest.” 

Pop along to a few Crest Nicholson developments and see if you think they add “visual interest.” They are three storeys high not 2.5, in ours, and everyone else’s book, and they urbanise villages!

Pictured below is the lakeside vista that visits Cranleigh quite regularly during heavy rain – and where Thakeham ‘Stupid’ Homes want to build 55 dwellings. You can read an earlier blog here: You couldn’t make it up – could you! Sub Aqua development coming to Cranleigh?

Screen Shot 2017-06-20 at 10.51.15.pngscreen-shot-2016-10-24-at-10-27-25

You will see from the report below the numerous  objections to both schemes. However, the determination of Liz the Biz and the motley crew she leads/drives/whips, into submission, will completely ignore any restraints or objections from local people, and press ahead regardless of the misery they heap onto these two villages.

Public reports pack 28062017 1830 Joint Planning Committee

These are a few of the  Farnham objections including one from Farnham Town Council:

  •   Little in the way of local shopping, post office or other facilities other than 2 pubs.
  •   No doctors or shops.
  •   There are brownfield sites in larger areas, wouldn’t these be best?
  •   Villages of Badshot Lea and Weybourne have expanded more than they should have.
  •   120 new homes on green field sites is not sustainable, viable or environmentally acceptable.
  •   Unsustainable location with no transport links. Highways
  •   Traffic volume into Lower Weybourne Lane would be hazardous and would increase volume through the already congested traffic lights at Badshot Lea.
  •   Effect on traffic access and egress to surrounding areas.
  •   Road access onto Lower Weybourne Lane unsuitable.
  •   Access to the site is very narrow and proposed junction would have poor visibility.
  •   Impact on traffic in Upper and Lower Weybourne Lane and Weybourne Road, already difficult to cross at school at start and end of school day as 5 schools in 1 mile of site (2 have over 1500 pupils each).
  •   Knock on congestion at 6 Bells Roundabout particularly if the proposed building adjacent to Monkton Lane and St John’s Church takes place.
  •   Highway hazard for bungalow on corner of Green Lane/ Lower Weybourne Lane due to restricted vision/blind spot.
  •   Currently only traffic using the entrance is SEB.
  •   Entrance too narrow to accommodate two way traffic with footpathseither side.
  •   Future use of Green Lane as a “rat run” from Badshot Lea.
  •   Sometimes can’t get out of Orchard Road due to parked cars.
  •   Green Lane is insufficient for the increased volume of traffic.
  •   Vehicles of new inhabitants will cause further congestion in the area.
  •   Lack of ‘off street’ parking therefore new development will increase the number of cars on already cluttered roads.
  •   Lower Weybourne Lane is main walking route to schools at either end.
  •   Lack of off-street parking on proposed site will lead to parking on existing roads or partially block the pedestrian pathway.
  •   Serious traffic congestion already at nearby Shepherd and Flock roundabout. Extra 250 cars would make this worse.
  •   Wentworth Close already used extensively for parking for parents of children at local schools for 2 hours per day and this would inevitably get worse.
  •   Unrealistic amount of car parking.
  •   Cycling in area is very low at 1%. Roads risky for cycling due to narrowlanes and number of car movements.
  •   Car parking guidelines not fit for purpose in semi-rural areas.
  •   Aldershot station is 2.7km from the end of Green Lane, not 2km.Landscape Impacts
    •   One of the last public green spaces left.
    •   Would change look and feel of area from semi-rural to high density housing.
    •   Destruction of beautiful countryside.
    •   Would not be a short-term slightly adverse impact on view.
    •   Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment fails to note the site is visible to most of the hillside area between Weybourne Rd and A325 (Hale).
    •   One of the few areas of natural beauty in the immediate area.

Visual Impact/Design

  •   Size of the proposed development is overwhelming for the space available.
  •   Proposed flats would not be in keeping with the local area, which is mostly single storey, bungalows or chalet style properties.
  •   Developments should be considerate of the style of surrounding area (with comparable size back gardens)
  •   Grossly over-dense and does not reflect the densit y of surrounding houses.
  •   Out of character – too many dwellings.
  •   Housing does not match the local character.
  •   Overdeveloped at 36.6 dwellings per hectare. Nearby developments of Badshot Parka nd Glorney Meead are 20 and 26 per hectare. Wentworth Close and Lower Weybourne Lane form the northern and western boundaries of the site and have densities of 17 and 26 per hectare.
  •   Town houses and 3 storey apartment blocks incompatible with adjacent built environment.
  •   Unacceptable urbanisation.
  •   Fails to meet all the ‘good design’ guidelines outlined in Section 7 ofthe NPPF.
  •   No defined design or description for the proposed houses, only artist impressions. If they houses are tall town houses will be out of keeping with rest of local housing.
  •   Proposed plans footprint and height are excessive and not suitable for the area.
  •   Loss of village identity. Flooding
    •   Land floods regularly.
    •   Concerns with the water table and potential flooding.
    •   More buildings will lead to surface runoff and contribute to even more flooding.
    •   Saturated in winter/waterlogged regularly.
    •   Lower Weybourne Lane regularly floods by bridge.
    •   No where for drainage to go.
    •   Badshot Lea and Lower Weybourne suffer badly from surface water flooding which gets worse each year.
    •   The whole site is within the catchment of the River Wey, a water course runs from the west to the east of the site and also southwards and the northern boundary is shown to be in the groundwater Safeguard Zone.

Ecology

  •   Wildlife seen include Dormice, deer, badgers and bats, Canada geese and pheasants, little Egrets, Dartford Warbler, Kingfishers, Barn Owls, small mammals, buzzards, newts, frogs, grass snakes, moles, foxes, rabbits, general bird life. Field is a necessity for local wildlife.
  •   See deer and kites every day.
  •   Negative impact on rare plants and wildlife on the site and nearby.
  •   Need open green spaces for balance of nature, eco-systems and environmental issues.
  •   Site supports wildlife from recently developed sites around it.
  •   Within 1.6km of Thames Basin Heaths and can’t realistically beprovision of SANG.
  •   An assessment needs to be made of the effect on the local SSSIs.
  •   Site should be turned into a nature reserve.
  •   Lies within Thames Basin Heaths SPA Buffer Zone and a large increase in population is incompatible with the aims of the SPA designation in this area.Amenity
    •   Area is a popular dog walking spot of which there are few. In summer months when Farnham Park has cattle grazing is only dog walking option.
    •   Used for children to walk safely from school.
    •   Loss of amenity space when more houses need more amenity space.
    •   Although very loosely privately owned, has been used for decades by the community
    •   Increase in traffic noise.
    •   Light pollution.
    •   Loss of privacy to existing residents as proposed houses would be looking directly into gardens, bedrooms and bathrooms and existing houses will be overlooked.
  •   Layout and density would lead to overshadowing, loss of privacy and disturbance as well as loss of visual amenity.
  •   Loss of views onto green space from all front aspect windows. Would have major impact on large number of adjacent properties.
  •   Taking away outside area used for a better life.
  •   Green Lane is probably the last unsurfaced country lane left in the localarea and used by walkers and cyclists as a pleasant break of peace
  •   Direct overshadowing from new development, lack of privacy and a significant loss of light.
  •   Loss of footpaths on site.
  •   Health concerns from being near high voltage power lines and exhaustfumes from existing traffic.
  •   Concern that application will rely on Farnham Park SANG and what remains should be reserved for brownfield applications in Farnham.
  •   Little consideration given to lives of people already in residence.
  •   Loss of views and devaluation.
  •   Turning sit e into village green would be far more beneficial to the area.Infrastructure
  •   120 houses is too much and road infrastructure can’t cope and schools already over subscribed.
  •   Would be detrimental to surrounding infrastructure including schools, health facilities and environment.
  •   Lack of sewerage capacity resulting in obnoxious smells from the Water Lane plant.
  •   Local sewerage depot in Monkton Lane is already overstretched with the current sewerage capacity.
  •   Doctors surgeries already overloaded.
  •   Schools, doctors, dentists and social services are already at full capacity. Can’t cope with more housing without significant infrastructure development.
  •   Bus service is not regular and poor public transport.
  •   Pressure on local utilities infrastructure.
  •   Lack of local shops, post office, bank facilities, GP Services, lack ofcycle paths and safe routes to schools/pre-schools from the site.
  •   Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the application.
  •   Adjacent recreation ground would be insufficient for the increase in number of users.
  •   No plans to build new roads or improve the existing ones. Other Matters
    •   Would be detrimental to the village.
    •   No remaining separation between communities of Badshot Lea andWeybourne and insufficient services in either community.
    •   Fields to west of Green Lane are the last remaining fields between Farnham and Aldershot.
    •   If Council Housing hadn’t been sold off to people able to buy market housing there would be no shortage of Council accommodation.
    •   Would encourage other further development of surrounding fields that could all be linked together.
    •   Total 80% increase in village size planned (441 homes).
    •   Were under the impression that land formed part of the Strategic Gapbetween Farnham and Aldershot which needs to be maintained.
    •   Major disruption from vehicles required for building work.
    •   Green Lane will no longer be a country lane.
    •   Proposed site is close to (under?) major power cables. Will it be safe, secure and cost effective.
    •   Character of the village should be considered.
    •   Would be completely against policy to protect the Countryside beyondthe Green Belt.
    •   WA/2014/0391 for 140 houses was rejected in July 2015 and this site is only 100m away and should be rejected on the same basis.
  •   Effect on house values as yet unknown.
  •   Adds to national argument of county boundary change by increasingpopulation between Aldershot and Farnham.
  •   Lack of meaningful local consultation. Objections voiced were not reflected in the proposal.
  •   Failure to meet NPPF guidelines including Paragraph 64.
  •   Badshot Lea is not suburban, as described by applicant.
  •   No identifiable benefits as far as the local community are concerned.
  •   Many areas in south Farnham where there is space to build and less congestion.
  •   Council has yet to reveal its Local Plan
  •   Amendment from 120 to 105 units does not alleviate previous concernsand reduction is insignificant and overall problems remain. Submissions in supportIn support of the application the applicant has made the following points:
  •   Access into the site is proposed from Green Lane. The existing road is a narrow lane and a new widened access for the northern section of the road is proposed. Whilst Green Lane will remain as a link to the south, the junction with the new site access will be specificallydesigned to prevent vehicles exiting the site in a southerly direction.
  •   The density of 30.95 dwellings per hectare, which reflects the density ofother development in the area.
  •   The layout of the housing development submitted is for illustrativepurposes only. Internally the access road has been laid out to provide perimeter housing development to ensure new private gardens are back to back with the existing rear gardens adjoining the site. The central area of the site is laid out as a number of back to back houses, parking courtyards and a centrally located mews development. There are a number of flats proposed within the development which are located towards the south eastern corner of the site. The layout has been designed to connect through to the recreational space and public footpath to the south ensuring good connectivity of the site to the existing amenities in the area.
  •   The layout will incorporate design features to provide a sense of space, legibility and focal points to the main views into the sites.
  •   Generally the scale of the new housing will be 2 storeys in height, a row of 2.5 storey housing is indicated to provide a contrast and add visual interest to the principle access road. This will act as a focal point to the site entrance and further add to the type of housing proposed. These town house properties are located towards the centre of the site ensuring there will be no loss of amenity or overlooking of the existing properties adjoining the site.
  •   Proposed flats are included in the overall master plan to again add to the choice of housing types and tenure being made available and to ensure efficient use is being made of the available land. Designated parking courts are provided for each of the flatted units.
  •   The location of three storey flats in the South East sector is considered to be an appropriate form of development as the high level cables already give a perceived scale to the area.
  •   Play areas are located in the South East corner with good landscaped screening and security through the views and perceived ‘overlooking’ from the adjacent flatted developments.
  •   Landscaping has been considered as an integral part of the layout, ample opportunities have been takes to ensure there will be ample space available f

If you read all that lot?

Screen Shot 2017-06-22 at 22.38.39.png