Councillor calls for housing ban – but only in Farnham

What about the rest of the borough?

Cllr David Beaman, chairman of Waverley’s one and only remaining planning committee – has called for a blanket ban on housing development in Farnham!


This is a slap in the face for a council that a developer has recently claimed has only a 3.4-year housing land supply, leaving it wide open for a succession of consented planning appeals.

It has also upset families who need homes. One Farnham resident claiming Cllr Beaman may as well put up the ‘You’re not welcome’ sign.’

In a recent Waverley Report, The Housing Options and Home Choice Teams continued to prevent homelessness during the summer. There were three households in temporary accommodation at the end of September 2023 compared with 8 in March 2023, which was welcomed by all; however,  homeless demand continues to be high.

There were 198 new homeless approaches this quarter compared to 214 last quarter. The team continue to see an increase in caseload year on year. Currently, two vacancies within the team impact the caseload and staff well-being.

The Homechoice Team has continued advertising and letting social housing tenancies and manages the Council’s Housing Register along with the Options Team. There is now a waiting list of 1,180 applicants, which may be even higher, as this was the June 2023 figure. Last year, there were 1,066.

Homelessness is rising in &#8216 Your Waverley.’

Who is entitled to be included in &#8216 Your Waverley’s housing register?

Mr Nick Williams of Stoke Hills told the Farnham Herald that Cllr Beman had put a stain on the Farnham Residents’ Group at Waverley. He claimed Farnham was an affluent area with few infrastructure concerns, far less than elsewhere in the country. 

He says Farnham has a part to play in addressing the shortage of affordable homes.


6 thoughts on “Councillor calls for housing ban – but only in Farnham”

  1. The problem seems to be with the low standards (in every sense of the word) of the new developments. There’s an emphasis on quantity at the expense of quality. Here are a few aspects to take into account like location, property /window sizes, materials, workmanship, just to name a few. The location of those newly built properties leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn’t take into account the noise levels in the environment, proximity to amenities etc. The sizes are way too small for a comfortable living, the materials used are not providing sufficient insulation (thermal and acoustic), attention to detail is poor, not to mention poor PR and responsiveness to reported issues.

    1. We receive comments privately and on our comments page about all the issues that you mention. On one particular development – Amber Parkside in Cranleigh the standard of workmanship, landscaping and acoustics is so bad, within a short time of moving there its residents are getting out! With costs associated with moving why should buyers be faced with the huge costs of selling and finding another home, because developers take the money and run.

  2. Prudently Councillor Beaman is stating the blindingly obvious this generation has failed tomorrow’s generation in terms of housing and toxic atmospheric pollution. Many parents hopefully take the comment the most polluted town in Surrey as a serious threat to their Children unless Farnham’s pollution levels actively measured are shown to be within World Health Organisation safe limits. In 2008 the Chief Executive of Waverley Borough Council strongly objected to the concerns expressed that the Brightwell’s development would bring pollution levels above the legal threshold. Hopefully the post development report on Environmental Impact Assessment compliance and active pollution monitoring will prove the Chief Executive correct.

  3. What I would like to see from WBC is of the Housing allocated in ALH1 how much has actually been approved in the:
    4 Main Settlements
    4 Large Villages
    7 Small Villages
    Other Villages
    Village Windfalls

    There must be someone out there that can point me in the right direction. We know in Alfold that our Minimum 125 Homes has been exceeded by over 386% or 358 New Approved Homes. I would love to know how many of the Main Settlements and LARGE VILLAGES have done anything like that.

    1. Good question Denise. The score in 2021/22 (for housing Completions) was Alfold 8, Farnham 274. The previous year was Alfold 25, Farnham 253. 2019/20 was Alfold 38, Farnham 174.

      You might prefer the scores for Grants of Planning Permission, which were Alfold 190, Farnham 61 in 2021/22, Alfold 5, Farnham 60 in 2020/21 and Alfold 147, Farnham 148 in 2019/20. That was close.
      The law requires LPAs to publish annual Local Plan performance monitoring reports.

      The WBC annual Authority Monitoring Reports (previously called the Annual Monitoring Reports) for each year since 2010 (except for 2012-13 apparently) are surprisingly easy to access through the Council website (Homepage >> Planning and Building >> Policies and Strategies, foot of page), or directly at the following URL

      The AMRs are about 67 pages each, with tabulated ‘results’ usually on pages 10 and 12 giving the ‘Completions’ and ‘Grants of Planning Permission’ data for each Town/Parish, In the 2021/22 AMR the tables are on pp 10 and 12 ; in the 2020/21 AMR they are on pp10 and 13.

      I haven’t looked at earlier years’ AMRs’ housing data yet as it’s possible that WBC have already collated it somewhere. Liz should know. She should also know when the awaited and imminent AMR for 2022/23 will be published.

      Hope this helps, Best wishes.

      1. Jerry you are Brilliant… I searched so many times – Just didn’t know the Right Word for it – Now I do!! Something to look at when it rains over the weekend
        All the very Best
        Denise (Diane was close!!)

Leave a Reply

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