THE owner of one of the two properties involved in a dispute over the position of a new pavilion just 15 yards from their front doors, has this week lambasted Waverley.
Michael Spilberg has accused the council of "totally failing to consult" and misleading people over plans for the building included in the £6.5 million Kilnfields regeneration scheme.
In a letter to The Herald, Mr Spilberg, who lives in Bartholomew Close, has attacked the council after a decision taken by ruling Lib Dem councillors to refuse to buy two properties blighted by the blue-topped pavilion.
Responding to comments made in a letter to The Herald by John Robini, a Haslemere's Lib Dem, who is on the decision-making executive committee, that he "would like to put the record straight about the pavilion," Mr Spilberg disagreed saying "he had done nothing of the sort".
He claimed that neighbours knew nothing of the final siting of the pavilion and "none showed the new pavilion right in front of our homes".
"I would ask Mr Robini to let us know, how we were expected to object to something we did not know was to happen?" asked Mr Spilberg. "Mr Robini's letter does say "following the original plans, the houses and pavilion were moved.
"This major confession on his part lies at the heart of our complaint, because there was not one jot of further consultation over this move.
"In other words there was wide consultation and a public exhibition over what they did not build and no consultation at all with us what they did build."
Mr Spilberg outlines the planning history of the site, which he also takes issue with.
He declared in his letter: "It is entirely disingenuous of Mr Robini to pretend that consultation was fair, thorough, and accurate, when it was anything but; to suggest that we simply missed our chance to object, when in truth we never had an inkling what was coming out way to object to.
"I appeal to Mr Robini to recognise that there is nothing "irresponsible" as he puts it in correcting a wrong; to recognise the justice of our case and to lend his weight and influence to bringing matters to a satisfactory conclusion".
Mr Robini was given a copy of Mr Spilberg's letter on Wednesday and asked to respond. He said he would study the contents and reply to the points raised by Mr Spilberg's in next week's edition of The Herald, because he needed time to address the issues raised fully.