THE deep and divisive conflict over the East Street redevelopment plan has resurfaced this week. It follows the response in last week's Herald by Waverley Borough Council's portfolio holder for the scheme Chris Mansell, after a public meeting called by the pressure group East Street Action, just before the general election. In a continuous barrage of claims and counter claims over the scheme, this week The Herald has been inundated with letters, voicing a chorus of dissent over elements of the masterplan and Mr Mansell's comments. While some call for developers to go back to the drawing board amid renewed accusations of secrecy and mishandling of the massive £100,000 million-pound scheme by Waverley Borough Council, which could change the face of Farnham forever, others take issue over the rumoured £6million that could swell the borough council's coffers, through developer's contributions, In a tit for tat statement to The Herald this week, Roger Steel, the chairman of the East Street Action public meeting and member of the committee, took Mr Mansell to task and accused Waverley Borough Council of being "guilty of working in an atmosphere of institutionalised secrecy". "This is the message coming out of the meeting that should have most concerned Mr Mansell as portfolio holder and as a democrat." And he questioned the recent resignation of Chris Slyfield, the leader of Mr Mansell's party, the Liberal Democrats, "stating that 'secrecy' was his reason." "Why does the council so readily go into "exempt" on any issue connected to East Street?," asked Mr Steel, who also harked back to problems relating to Brightwell Bowling Club and the recent Ombudsman's report which resulted in Waverley having to pay the club compensation. He also dismissed Mr Mansell's claims that there is a cross-party group working to "get the East Street project right". "This is just not so," declared Mr Steel in his response. "There is a cross-party Special Interest Group, SIG for East Street, but it has not met once since the Lib Dems took control of the council two years ago and neither has there been an open debate at full council on East Street. Mr Mansell makes all his policy decisions at a time when protocol does not allow questioning or debate," claimed Mr Steel. And he added that until the East Street development is seen to be managed and debated "in an open and democratic way, it is not going to be possible to make the right decision for Farnham or indeed for Waverley". The group he said, while supporting the regeneration wholeheartedly as per its constitution, it does not "support a development on Brightwell Gardens that is driven largely by financial gain to Waverley and which results in 300 flats, a five-acre underground car park, hotel and yet more offices. "Even in the words of Mr Mansell's colleagues, what is proposed in the master plan, is a 'high-density development' and the higher the density the more money available to Waverley," claimed Mr Steel. Responding to other issues over the regeneration plans, including Mr Mansell's claims that the action group made no mention of the findings of a report of the South East Design Panel, which highlighted Waverley's "proactive approach to developing the land", Mr Steel hit back and said: "We quoted its concerns regarding the fact that the mass and grain of the proposed buildings were out of keeping with the town and we also quoted its worries over the underground car park. Indeed every single fact stated at the public meeting was supported by independent studies all of which are known to the officers if not to the councillors." And Mr Steel concluded his remarks with a determination "to certainly question where we fund a breakdown in the local government process. "I am pleased to say that we have a great many residents of Farnham supporting us in this respect. We too look forward to participating in the design consultative forums when a date is set." Mr Mansell, who responded to some of the criticisms made by the group and letters printed on The Herald letters page this week, defended his comments. He dismissed the vote of no confidence in Waverley officers, which was passed at the meeting, calling it "gesture politics as opposed to say, careful marshalling of the points and a constructive request to discuss them with the relevant people at Waverley". To accusations of secrecy over the plans Mr Mansell said that the conditional contract between Waverley and the developers Crest Nicholson and Sainsbury's property company, excluding any financial information "is now available to all under the Freedom of Information Act. And he added: "Debates in council may relate to 'exempt' papers. Such debates are conducted in private with no public present or web-casting. "Finally I have to say that, despite the accusations of secrecy, over the last two years surprisingly few questions have been put on aspects of the development to the members directly involved. The offer has been made several times and remains now as open as ever: we are always available to listen and discuss." • The first of four meetings of the Design Consultative Forum, expected to take place on June 7, has been postponed. Mr Mansell said that the reason for the postponement was because Waverley was still waiting for Crest Nicholson to agree the date. With the date of the first meeting still unknown at the time The Herald went to press, Mr Mansell said: "Any hard information will be made public as soon as it becomes available."