When is a SANG not a SANG? When you have to drive past the original Sang to get to the new one?
A bid by Taylor Wimpey to move a proposed SANG – (Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space) from Farnham Park to Church Crookham has angered the Farnham Society.
What is this con trick devised by the Government to provide developers with ways and means of shelling out shedloads of cash to provide green spaces for dog walkers and exercise elsewhere, in a bid to protect the areas around Special Protection Areas?
In other words – developers paying for planning consents to build lots of little boxes, all made out of the same ticky tacky – and all looking the same?
If you stood in the middle of some of the housing estates now popping up faster than daffodils in Waverley you wouldn’t know whether you were in Farnham or Fareham – Alfold or Aldershot. On estates with roads like Bluebell Walk, where a bluebell will never rear its beautiful head ever again!
Now the national housebuilder wants to use its Naishes Wood SANG in Church Crookham in Hampshire – yes really in another county altogether. Thereby withdrawing its contribution to ‘Your Waverley’ for the management and maintenance of Farnham Park’s SANG! Kerching!
To get to Church Crookham of course you have to load up the dog/s and drive twice as far past? Yes, you guessed – Farnham Park!
In other words – Taylor Wimpey’s cunning plan to use a SANG it already owns elsewhere because presumably, it isn’t making enough money from its Farnham development. Or as Leader and Farnham Cllr John Ward might say…
Have boots and dogs – will travel?
No wonder the Farnham Society – the organisation that speaks up for us here in the Town is so pi**ed off.
Its spokesman David Howell has written to Waverley Planners urging them to refuse the revision, saying:
Although the site is included in the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan, the proposed development will have a negative impact on our already congested roads. Congestion and pollution are already above acceptable levels in some areas of Farnham. Promoting additional car journeys of increased length should be avoided. The committee accept that had the SANG proposed been closer to the development site, but outside the local planning authority’s area of control, the case for refusing the application would be less. However, that is not the case. Natural England’s view should be sought but it should confirm that the Special Protection Area policy has significant weight and allocating contribution to another borough in this instance is unacceptable. The Society is of the strong opinion that the SANG contribution arising from this housing development should stay within the borough and with the community in which the site is located.
We strongly object to this application and respectfully request that it is refused.