A development scheme of 320 homes (90 affordable) has hit the Waverley buffers again.
After the exhaustive efforts of developers, including Cala Homes, since 2019 to provide an exemplary development of much-need homes off West Street – councillors want more time to
get it right,”
Despite the outline scheme being approved for 320 homes already in the bag, Cala will need to satisfy borough councillors that residents living in Hazel Road and Elkins Grove are unaffected despite officers being satisfied with a detailed scheme, which has taken a year to complete.
Has anyone at Waverley Towers ever considered the residents of “poor old Alfold?” Not on your nelly. Did the planners give a toss about where car parks abutted the homes in Chilton Close or on Loxwood Road, Alfold or Horsham Road, Cranleigh and many more developments in the East? Sites which would have benefitted from vast green buffers?
One rule for Farnham – another for the rest of the borough?
So, the saga of Coxbridge goes on because councillors have agreed to defer the application. After all, Cllr Carole Cockburn and Cllr Jane Austin want Cala to return to the drawing board, knock a few houses out,re-design the road layout and drainage and reduce the density. That won’t take long – will it?
Chief Planning Officer Claire Upton Brown’s gentle warning that the application was now out of time and the developer could appeal for non-determination—with all the costs involved—fell on deaf ears. Defending appeals is now an everyday occurrence in ‘Your Waverley,’ with council taxpayers footing the bill. Never mind, perhaps all those Band H properties may dig deeper to fund another appeal.
Owners of Waverley’s largest homes could be asked to dig deeper for the common good.
The buffer gives a distance of only 45 metres! Yes, 45 metres—where, on most developments, you would be lucky to get the usual 25 metres!
Here’s the scheme:
He said:
“We have worked with everyone to provide a safe, attractive development to set a high bar for Farnham. Every effort has been made to provide a quality gateway to Farnham Town that causes no harm to residents now or future generations.”
BTW – two and a half-storey homes are no different to three storeys.
The Farnham Neighbourhood Plan states clearly
“A sufficient Green buffer must be provided to the rear of Hazell Road by way of long back gardens backing onto the existing gardens to minimise visual and amenity impact to the existing properties”
The buffer distance you mention of 45 metres only applies to SOME of the properties on Hazell Road, where the back gardens face each other.
It’s a shame that the developer has adhered to this for just some of the properties along the boundary with Hazel Road but left other with virtually no site buffer whatsoever. There has been no work done at all, so any changes will only be plan modifications to accommodate the re-orientation of no more than half a dozen houses.
The six councillors who voted in favour of deferral should be congratulated. The four who voted against possibly did not feel empathy for the residents of Hazell Road. But then again, they none of them have to answer to the residents of Farnham.
If only Waverley councillors had the same level of sympathy for other parts of the borough—parts they either cannot or don’t want to reach!
Mr Wright-Smith is correct in what he says, but there is far more to this matter, which some simply cannot face. The ‘divide and rule’ politics is just one symptom of the malaise, and with the new Standard Method of Housing Allocations threatening the whole of the borough, we need to stand together to to ensure the legal constraints are duly applied and defended.
Of course WW is quite right to say that there should be just one rule for all, and indeed there already is – the Duty of Candour, which is already enshrined in common law, courtesy of Lord Donaldson MR in R. v Lancs (‘Huddleston’).
Everything else flows from that.
Hence it is the duty of Councillors to learn to make decisions which are defensible, irrespective of the emotions, opinions and the partial advice of vested interests. We are only as good as the information we act upon, so it is vital to proper decisionmaking that ‘both sides of the story’ are heard and reflected.
Not surprisingly, for the sake of balance, I would refer you to the information presented for that purpose (see the webcast, circa 37 to 42 mins). I’ll email the text to you to fact-check and publish if you so wish.
In the circumstances, the Tory revolt was intelligent and the LibDem position ill-advised. It might be considered that the ‘expert’ advice given to Members regarding the risk of an Appeal for deferral (non-Determination) was partial and misleading, as the Appellants would be setting themselves against the recent Ruling of the Court of Appeal in the CG Fry judgement, at great risk of bringing down the entire house of cards.
They wouldn’t want to do that. The result would be that development in Waverley would have to be based on the firm foundations of candour, integrity and the law.
You might ask, what is there not to like about that? Talk about appealing! Bring it on.
Cllr Jerry Hyman, Farnham Firgrove ward (formerly Member for Farnham Castle ward).
Well said Cllr Hyman!
Let us just hope that the same Principals apply to ALL Wards that have a Neighbourhood Plan as we now have in Alfold… But I am not holding my breath. Is anyone else?
WW Don’t be so uttely silly! Two and half storeys are different from three storeys! Three storeys would be three floors + the roof (Which could be converted later to the half floor). 2 and a half may have three floors of accomodation but with the top in the roof theses nowhere to go up.
We could show you dozens of developments in |Waverley where permission was given for two and a half storeys, and they ended up as three! The proof is in the pudding. There are also instances where the heights of the homes are increased because the soil is imported and the levels raised. Those are mainly in flood-risk areas.
Prove it then! I have never seen a house approved with 2.5 storeys that then magically adds a floor on top. I don’t dispute the height matter but raising soil doesn’t suddenly make it three storeys either.
Go and look at some of the heights of developments in Cranleigh. Hewitts Industrial Estate and more. So building up sites and building two znd a half storeys doesn’t increase the height to three storeys. These properties dominate the single -storey and double-storey properties. We’re going to rest our case.
Developers are loving this…not even allocated sites can get permission. I hope they appeal, our council tax now only covers lawyers defending the indefensible (see latest JR at Farnham which was a hopeless case). More housing for Alfold on the way…
This development was approved 3 years ago. It’s shocking the council are still trying to block it. And then they complain that these blocked developments don’t count towards the 5 year plan?
And how on earth did visual amenity for the residents of Hazel road end up in the neighborhood plan??
I hope a minister for housing can quickly get involved and get spades in the ground as this council does not have the interests of the community at heart.
In fairness to Waverley Council, its planning officers recommended approval of the scheme and appeared to be pretty miffed that their expert recommendation was turned down. WW agrees. When did NPs make recommendations that specific roads and homes should be protected?
When it is FARNHAM! they seem to feel that as the Biggest beast in the Borough they can do what they want – The Mouse in the East deserves more Air-time…
Voting and party Politics aside THEY still have the largest Vote on any Planning Commitee … I still do NOT understand when a large Rural proportion of the Borough have ONE committee member – I do not care what councillors say it is WRONG and Biased