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.


  •   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

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

  1. Gosh – By the time I had got thru all of that I lost the will to live – RESULT DEFERRMENT – Better than nothing – We can fight another day – Off to bed!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.