News
ARTICLE FROM THE FARNHAM HERALD REGARDING OUR AGM ON THE 19TH OF JUNE
There was a sense of despair at the latest meeting of the North West Farnham Residents' Association, as members discussed the recent decision by planning inspectors to approve Gleeson Homes' proposal to build 83 houses on land north of Abbey View.
The decision, which overturned local objections, sparked frustration and concern among residents. In attendance to address questions were Farnham Town Cllr David Beaman and Surrey County Cllr Andy Macleod, who fielded queries on a range of topics including local government reform, the Brightwells Yard development, and the future of the Woolmead site.
Trevor Free, a local resident, summed up the community's frustration:"Waverley has failed us miserably after more than 200 objections, protests outside of Waverley Borough Council, and 11 of 13 planning councillors voting against the development, but the planning authority has decided to grant the development on appeal with conditions."
Town councillors Cllr Graham White and Cllr George Hesse were scheduled to attend but were delayed due to an extended Farnham Town Council meeting.
UPDATE ON SCHOOL STREETS 29th MAY 2025
An engagement report has been published showing that 51% of residents are in favour of the schools streets, 43% against and 8% neutral.
The results and recommendations in the report have been shared with the local County Councillor, and a decision has been made to progress to the next step. The proposed School Street is subject to the legal requirement to publish a formal legal notice to allow local people to comment. The details of this legal notice will be published on the Commonplace website, in due course. The feedback and Officers' response to the feedback to the legal consultation on the School Street will then be presented to the local County Councillor for a decision on whether to proceed or not. If the decision is taken to proceed, the intention is that the scheme will start sometime in Autumn 2025. Local people will be informed of the nature of the works, and disruption will be minimised as far as possible
UPDATED 24th APRIL 2025
EXCESSIVE SPEEDS IN CRONDALL LANE
Please read the following regarding the steps that are being taken
Crondall Lane excessive speeds 25 4 2025.pdf
31st OCTOBER 2024
ALLEGED FOOTPATH BEHIND THE UCA
An alleged footpath which has been neglected and unused for many years behind the UCA would be very useful as a short cut - here is a link to the footpath in question - marked A ---------- B.
Alleged Footpath behind the UCA Farnham 001.pdf
If this alleged Footpath was taken up as a definitive path it would save you walking North up Footpath 7 and 94. It leads to Footpath 92 and 87. Going South it would also save you walking on 7 and 94. It would make it a quicker route getting to and from the Castle and Farnham Park. If you, or anyone you know, have ever used it in the past (probably over 10 years ago) - then please could you contact us using the "contact us" link on the Home Page. Your actions could help restore it. Thank you.
UPDATED 25th JULY - ANOTHER EMAIL FROM ABBEY VIEW RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION - AVRA - SENT 23RD OF JULY TO WAVERLEY PLANNING COUNCILLORS - FULLY SUPPORTED BY NWRA AND OPLRA
Regarding the determination meeting reference WA/2023/01467 held at Waverley Council Chambers on 10th July 2024 to consider the outline planning application by Gleeson for access to and development of the Old Park Lane Site we wish to add the following comments for the record.
History and Result
Previously this application was allowed a full evening schedule to resolve it's outcome, allowing time for the policies to be fully reviewed and fully documented.
In retrospect this planning meeting was included with five other applicants on the night and the summing up left the public not understanding what final policies were included in the vote in favour of refusal.
The uncertainty was caused due to Cllr Alan Earwaker who seconded the refusal motion but then was refused permission to clarify the inclusion of Councillor David Beaman's 10 policies that the application was in breach of that were the reasons for refusal.
This was overridden as it was regarded as sub sequential to the vote of refusal but then a further reason for refusal regarding section106 was added after the vote for refusal.
Claire Upton-Brown clarified the main policies which had been identified as relevant to the proposed refusal vote, however due to the ensuing debates between Councillors it was agreed that at the next planning committee meeting these finer points would be clarified if they related to the main policy decision.
We therefore would appreciate being informed should any further updates be added resulting from the next meeting. Please can you confirm this will happen, as there is no reference to this in the minutes that have been issued.
Local Residents
Regardless of the late notice of the meeting and a change of date from the Waverley Web site
(which stated end of July) the residents of Abbey View, North West Farnham and Old Park Lane filled the public gallery in support of their objection to the access through Abbey View and to witness the refusal to this planning application by 11 votes in favour of refusal of the application and two against with no abstentions.
Clarification of Refusal
We list below those policies mentioned during the determination meeting by the various speakers and Councillors for your consideration, (taken from the transcript of the video of the meeting).
These were the policies and objections that our members understood would be incorporated into the minutes.
DM5.
FNP 1; FNP 10; FNP 12; FNP14, FNP 30;
NPPF 14; NPPF 56; NPPF 99; NPPF 135f; NPPF 173; NPPF 180.
I would also record that our public speaker Surrey County Councillor Catherine Powell mentioned many subjects of concern namely:- Drainage, SANG and infrastructure and we were surprised these were not mentioned when it came to listing the reasons and policies for refusal of the application. The issue of the inability to enforce the condition relating the maintenance of the orifices for the SUDs system, given that the proposed orifices are as small as 10mm and the developer has advised that orifices need to be at least 50mm in size to be maintainable to avoid flooding.
In our opinion all the above policies and reasons will be relevant if it comes to an appeal hearing and should therefore be listed in your minutes.
Trevor Free
For and on behalf of AVRA
John Willacy
For and on behalf of OPLRA
David King
For and on behalf of NWFRA
NWFRA EMAIL TO WAVERLEY COUNCILLORS 24th JULY
The NWFRA wish to make further comments to clarify certain points regarding Application WA/2023/01467
This application is for Outline application with all matters reserved except access for up to 83 dwellings (including 24 affordable) and public open space/country park including related play space community orchard wildlife pond internal access roads footways/footpaths and drainage basins/corridor.
This application was refused by the Planning Committee meeting held on 10TH July 2024
Access to the potential development site,off Crondall Lane and through the Abbey View estate was specifically addressed by Committee members Councillors Hesse and White and also by County Councillor Catherine Powell as a public speaker.
Therefore, please confirm that
1 - this application was for outline permission for access only to the potential site for development
2 - hence the Committee's decision to refuse this application relates only to the outline application for proposed access to the potential development site
3 - the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting should solely reflect the decision to refuse the outline application for access only and require appropriate amendment to record the application and the committee's decision
4- All other potential aspects (with exception of access only) of the project remain "reserved matters " which require a fresh and separate outline planning application - these aspects include (but are not limited to ) the principle, policy, practice, procedure and detail of development for "up to 83 dwellings (including 24 affordable) and public open space/country park including related play space community orchard wildlife pond internal access roads footways/footpaths and drainage basins/corridor"
5- the debate at the Planning Committee meeting, which included other potential aspects of the proposed development (other than access only ) cannot be construed as dealing with and/or deciding on the Planning Committee's decision to refuse the outline application and will not compromise/prejudice the Council's position in relation to any appeal against the Committee refusal and any future application(s) for "any reserved matters "
For and behalf of NWFRA
David King
Chairman NWFRA |
PREVIOUSLY 11TH JULY
WA/2023/01467 PLANNING APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT ON LAND OFF OLD PARK LANE IS REJECTED BY WAVERLEY PLANNING COMMITTEE!
HERE IS A COPY OF AN EMAIL FROM TREVOR FREE OF AVRA
Dear Everyone,
For those who were unable to attend the Waverley council chambers last night we had success in that 11 of the 13 Councillors on the planning committee deemed it was harmful to Abbey View and the existing fields and voted in favour of the proposal to reject the outline planning application on the grounds of harm.
There was some confusion as to the final wording and this was to be agreed today at the council meeting before issue of the minutes to ensure all the relevant issues were recorded but in essence we achieved our objective to fight another day.
We were well supported by the Farnham Town Councillors George Hesse, David Beaman and
Graham White who put forward their cases on behalf of the town and our local community and also to
SCC Catherine Powell who represented and spoke eloquently and forcefully on our behalf.
Many thanks for their contributions, time and efforts in achieving a good response from the planning committee.
To all those who have helped, thank you, the fight is not over and we need to be aware they will appeal but today we can celebrate, this is the first step in our goal to not allow access through our development.
Kind Regards Trevor
For and on behalf of AVRA
We at NWFRA support AVRA in their battle against this planning application
Here is a copy of The Farnham Herald article published on the 27th of June - reproduced by kind permission of The Farnham Herald.
20MPH SPEED REDUCTIONS NOW IN FORCE - UPDATE 21ST JUNE
The new 20MPH speed restrictions came into force throughout the centre of Farnham and part way up Crondall Lane at the end of October - however without any policing, it doesn't seem to have made any difference to the speed that the majority of motorists do.
We made a request to Surrey County Council Highways for the electronic speed sign (VAS) be replaced by one showing "20" MPH - this has been approved by SCC and we expect the new VAS to be installed in about a month - SUCCESS!
PAVEMENT IN CRONDALL LANE
We had complained to SCCH that the state of the pavement in Crondall Lane, from opposite Beavers Road to the junction with West Street, left a lot to be desired. It was in a disgraceful state and needed urgent attention. It was completed about 3 months ago - SUCCESS!
MANHOLE COVERS IN CRONDALL LANE
According to an email received from SCC they look to be "fixed" again.
Two of the manhole covers had again sunk - yet again! These are situated just beyond the Dippenhall Business Park if travelling to Farnham and are in such a position in the middle of the road, that they are impossible to miss if there is oncoming traffic. These had also been reported to SCCH.
ROAD VERGE CUTTING
Here is a link to Surrey CC regarding this surreycc.gov.uk/grasscutting
If you have a complaint or concern about maintenance of highway verges or weed control in your area, please do not contact Waverley Borough Council, you can email highways@surreycc.gov.uk or phone Surrey County Council on 0300 200 1003. You can also report it on Surrey County Council's website at Surrey County Council - Tell us about a tree, hedge, grass or weed issue (surreycc.gov.uk)
HGV PROHIBITIONS IN FARNHAM NOW IN FORCE- Here is a link relating to what has been done.
https://www.surreysays.co.uk/
However, without policing they are of limited value. There are plans afoot apparently to install CCTV camera(s) - we understand that a mobile unit will be deployed shortly (end June 2024) - but the fine is only £70 - a legal maximum - which if promptly paid reduces to £35 - hardly a major deterrent!