Sir, – Once again we have had the opportunity to have sight of the seven developers' plans and proposals for the development of East Street.
At least on this occasion in much more suitable surroundings than before, but I cannot help but reflect on the fact that Waverley council needed a second chance to get something as simple as a small exhibition right.
In the light of this, with a project as large as East Street, where there will be no second chance, one can only have doubt as to their capability to make a sound judgement.
As I considered the plans for the second time, it became obvious that it would require many hours, continuously spent poring over the individual developers' proposals, in order to try to establish a fair appraisal of them and that it was unlikely that many people would be able to do this.
For this reason we are forced to rely on our councillors to do this for us, which makes it imperative that the decision on which scheme is approved should be made by councillors who represent wards in and around Farnham.
I cannot see why a councillor from, say, Bramley who is likely to be more interested in what goes on in Guildford, should have an influence on the development.
The inference is clear; this development is not just about what is done in Farnham but also how it affects Waverley as a whole.
If one looks at the development site, approximately two thirds of the freehold of the land is owned by Waverley.
When I spoke to Waverley's Principal Planning Officer, Mr Peter Hartley, and queried what the value of the freehold was and whether or not it would remain in Waverley's ownership, or would it be sold, or offered to a developer as part of a deal, he was unable to say.
He was however able to say that Waverley would obtain "best value."
Let us not fool ourselves, best value for Waverley not Farnham.
One thing is crystal clear – that any profit or financial gain will disappear into the coffers of Waverley and not be used for the benefit of Farnham.
Frederick O Elkins
Heathyfields Road, Farnham