WAVERLEY Borough Council has been warned it could face a £2m bill should it lose a battle in the High Court over the Brightwells regeneration scheme this autumn.

The council’s decision-making executive committee signed off £250,000 of taxpayers’ cash for “external legal costs” to fight the impending judicial review claim by the Farnham Interest Group (FIG) at its meeting on Tuesday.

But taking his seat in the council chamber for the first time since his election last month, Farnham Residents’ councillor Jerry Hyman reminded council chiefs that this sum could be “just the beginning”.

“This could cost council taxpayers a mint and, of course, the residents we serve are paying for both sides,” said the newly-elected borough councillor for Farnham Castle.

“The recommendation states the £250,000 is an initial sum for external legal costs, so there is obvious concern among residents that the amount may double to half a million or more.

“We also need to know whether the £250,000 makes provision for the possible award of damages. If not, and if we assume the claimants spend a similar sum to the council, then we may be looking at a total of a million pounds in legal fees for both sides.”

Mr Hyman also queried if the £250,000 quoted by Waverley includes the legal costs of its Brightwells development partner Crest Nicholson, and whether Waverley has “a cast-iron guarantee” that Crest will pay their share of the legal fees if FIG wins the case.

He added: “Of course, if [Waverley] lose then Crest also won’t be contributing the promised £800,000 toward the Memorial Hall works, so is the recommendation we’re looking at tonight the beginning of a £2m bill?”

It comes just weeks after High Court judge Geraldine Andrews gave FIG leave to proceed with its judicial review, challenging Waverley’s handling of the long-delayed redevelopment of East Street.

Led by The Farnham Society, Farnham Building Preservation Trust and East Street Action, FIG’s claim seeks to reverse Waverley’s decision in May to amend the Brightwells development agreement to the financial benefit of Crest.

The interest group has raised a significant – albeit undisclosed – sum toward its legal costs through a public appeal, and has has appointed two barristers from one of London’s leading law firms, Landmark Chambers, to fight its case.

Responding to Mr Hyman at Tuesday’s meeting, Waverley leader Julia Potts lamented FIG’s actions for forcing the council to spend thousands of pounds defending its position on Brightwells.

She said: “The Brightwells regeneration scheme will create jobs, new homes and a vastly improved social and leisure aspect for the town, as well as creating an additional £800,000 to £900,000 per year in income for the borough council. It has an implemented planning consent and a funder [Surrey County Council] is in place.

“The fact that a group of people want to stop that is a very sad day because nobody ultimately will win from this. We need those benefits, we need this regeneration scheme and a large majority of people in Farnham want to see this regeneration scheme go ahead. So for those reasons alone, and there are a number of other reasons, we make this request for the money toward legal costs.”

Miss Potts also dismissed Mr Hyman’s criticism that the start of building works at the Memorial Hall on West Street this week is “premature” – insisting that the judicial review will have no bearing on the refurbishment of the hall.

She added that the request for an initial £250,000 to fight FIG in the High Court will be “robustly debated” by the full council at its next meeting in October.

Tom Martin, Waverley’s deputy leader, added: “A significant amount of ongoing revenue, not to mention the many jobs of this scheme, are at stake and it is absolutely essential that we defend our position.

“It is a shame that a number of our residents do not believe that the benefits of this scheme are so great and are bringing forward this judicial review. But I believe in the scheme and I am keen to ensure that we defend our position as far as possible.

“We hear year after year of the difficulties of our finances and the withdrawal of government funding by way of grants, and ultimately we need to find a way to plug those holes, and this is one such investment project we should jump at.”

Borough solicitor Daniel Bainbridge confirmed that Crest, as a separate party to the claim, will bear its own legal costs for defending its position but will, as agreed by councillors in May, split the council’s costs 50-50.

A full hearing on FIG’s judicial review claim against Waverley’s handling of the Brightwells scheme is expected to take place over three days in October.