A plan, WA/2023/01467, to build 83 homes in a former hop field in Farnham has been refused by councillors. However, Waverley’s Chief Planning Officer isn’t happy.

Over 400 objectors and most Waverley Councillors representing Farnham residents opposed a development they claimed would rubbish Neighbourhood Plans across the borough.

Including those for Farnham, Cranleigh, Godalming and Haslemere.

Public speakers, including Farnham’s Surrey County Councillor Catherine Powell, slammed the officer’s recommendation to approve the plan. A scheme not included in Waverley’s Local Plan or  Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan in an (ASVI) Area of Strategic Visual Importance.

A developer wants outline consent for  83 dwellings (including 24 affordable and public open spaces/country parks, related play spaces, community orchards, wildlife ponds, internal access roads, footways/footpaths and drainage basins/corridors off Old Park Lane, Farnham.

Seniors Planning Officer Claire Upton-Brown apologised for being “grumpy” while warning the Planning Committee that without robust planning reasons for refusal, Waverley would be left impotent if forced to defend the decision at an appeal.

I strongly advise you all if you want to refuse, think carefully about the reasons WHY?

One councillor after another gave a stream of reasons why a developer should not be permitted to forge access through the Wimpey Development at Abbey View. Which they claimed would destroy the peace and tranquillity of the 700 people living there.

Some described the mitigation of countryside loss with SANG—Strategic `Natural Greenspace—and the expectation that residents would travel nine miles away to Naishes Wood in Hampshire as”ridiculous.” However, planning officer MS Upton-Brown explained that Natural England supported this.

However, the Waverley Web understands that the latest 5-year SPA visitor survey carried out in Summer 2023 and recently published reveals that visitor numbers to the Thames Basin heaths—monitored since 2005—have risen in line with the area’s population increase. Does this indicate that the NE strategy is effective?

There was insufficient Farnham infrastructure to accommodate yet another vast development. Due to the Lack of secondary school places, some pupils are forced to travel to Ash, putting further pressure on GPs, dentists, and  Crondall Lane traffic queues. There is also the risk of flooding and a possible lack of drinking water. The scheme was attacked by councillors, claiming it ignored Surrey County Council’s “Healthy Streets ” requirements for the Abbey View Estate residents.

Cllr Terry Weldon said whilst supporting NPs, the fact was – that Waverley does not have a 5-year housing supply and was not meeting its obligations. The site is sustainable, and there was no evidence from the statutory consultees the development would cause harm – so was supporting the scheme. 

Our problem is  we are not judged on the number of homes on allocated sites, but on the homes constructed in |Waverley. If we dont support sites like this where are we?

Councillors almost unanimously condemned the “rubbishing” of Farnham’s Neighbourhood Plan. Sacrificing publicly supported plans on the alter of Waverley’s Lack of a 5-year housing land supply

FNP’s architect, Cllr Carole Cockburn, said the town already had 2,780 planning consents, and it was not Farnham’s fault that many of them had not been implemented as had happened elsewhere in the borough. She said the boundary had been drawn around the town, and breaching it here could lead to breaches elsewhere.

We don’t need any more houses in Farnham – we allocated and we delivered. Why should we tear up another green field.

Councillors claimed strong planning reasons for refusal: demonstrable harm that outweighed the benefits; lack of services, e.g., water, flooding, and sewage issues; overdevelopment and the impact on the Abey View development, through which access was required.

The scheme was refused by 11 votes to two. It was agreed, due to confusion, not to issue the decision notice until after the minutes had been agreed at the next meeting of the planning committee,