Seven homes at Foxdene, 108 Upper Hale Road, Farnham

What was proposed

The application proposed seven homes after demolishing the existing dwelling and outbuildings, with a new access, parking, footway and associated works.

“WA/2025/02496 – Erection of 7 dwellings with alterations to access and associated works following demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings (as amended by plans received 09/02/2026) at FOXDENE 108 UPPER HALE ROAD FARNHAM GU9 0JW”

“The housing mix includes one 1-bed maisonette, one 2-bed maisonette, one 3-bed two storey semi-detached house (all at the front of the site) and four 3-bed 2.5 storey semi- detached houses (at the rear of the site), all with external amenity space, set on a small cul-de-sac arrangement, accessed from Upper Hale Road.”

Officer report

The site

Foxdene was a semi-detached home and outbuilding on a sloping residential plot with an existing private access, hedges and trees.

“Foxdene, 108 Upper Hale Road, comprises a semi-detached two-storey dwelling sat on a 0.21ha parcel of land to the north of Upper Hale Road in Farnham, opposite the Upper Hale Recreation Ground. The site, up until recently, comprised an overgrown garden of dense bramble scrub which has been cut back. The semi-detached dwelling and an adjacent single-storey outbuilding are both in relatively poor dilapidated condition, sat behind the scrub.”

“The site has a slightly sloping topography running south to north, with the ground level being approximately 5m higher at the rear of the plot. Immediate character is residential.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Three earlier applications for five or six homes were withdrawn, and officers considered the planning history not materially significant.

“A number of applications have previously been submitted on the site with a different applicant, but all were withdrawn. From the available planning history for the most recent…”

“2019 application, there were outstanding ecological surveys that were not provided within the timeframe as well as layout issues unresolved. Given the change in layout, that suitable ecological information has been provided here and that these applications were withdrawn, the planning history is not considered to be a significant material planning consideration.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways, trees and Natural England raised no objection subject to conditions, mitigation, highway works and legal obligations.

“Consultees Comments SCC Highways Authority No objection (subject to conditions, a mini- Section 278 agreement and highway land being dedicated via a Section 106 agreement) (09/03/2026) Councils Tree and Landscape Officer No objection (subject to conditions)”

“(15/01/2026) Natural England No objection (subject to appropriate mitigation being secured in relation to the Thames Basin Heath SPA) (06/03/2026)”

Officer report

What people said

Twenty-eight letters objected over traffic, parking, overdevelopment, character, neighbours, ecology and drainage, while eight supported housing and site improvements.

“‒ Development would cause major traffic chaos. ‒ Construction disturbance and traffic impact to local residents. ‒ Strain on existing infrastructure (roads / sewage). ‒ No visitor parking provided. ‒ Insufficient parking for new dwellings. ‒ Upper Hale is already overdeveloped – no more infill development. ‒ Proposal ignores the building line of Upper Hale Road. ‒ Unacceptable impact to character of the area and views of the war memorial.”

“‒ Good quality plan for this site which has been in disrepair for several years. ‒ Development will provide much needed housing in the area. ‒ Trees on site are currently unsafe. ‒ Current site is an eyesore, and proposal would be a welcome improvement. ‒ Inclusion of a footway to the front of the site will be a benefit. ‒ Greatly encouraged by thoughtful approach of Beaufoy Homes Ltd who intend to call the new road Evalen Place after the previous owners.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The public speaking scheme heard from an objector, a councillor objector, a supporter and a ward councillor.

The committee debate

During debate, members proposed an alternative resolution to refuse the application.

“Following debate, an alternative resolution to refuse was proposed by Councillor White and seconded by Cllr Beaman. The Committee voted in favour of the alternative resolution 8 in favour, 1 abstention and 2 against.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused permission, finding overdevelopment, harm to character and street scene, and inadequate mitigation and access arrangements without a Section 106 agreement.

“Planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:”

“The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site it does no respect the character of the area or the street scene and would therefore be in conflict with RD1 of the Local Plan, DM 4 and FNP1 of the Neighbourhood Plan.”

Minutes