CREST Nicholson has taken the expected move of opting for a planning appeal, to safeguard the contract they hold with Waverley Council to carry out the East Street development. With just days to go before the contractual longstop date is reached this Sunday, Waverley announced that formal notification has been given that Crest are lodging an appeal in respect of the non- determination of several planning applications relating to the £100 million scheme. Their action serves to automatically extend the conditional contract, which otherwise could have been terminated by either the council or the developer. Whether the matter comes to a public inquiry depends largely on whether negotiations over a scaled-down scheme are successfully concluded and planning consent is achieved. But pressure groups, who have cried out for the scheme to be "called-in" and a decision taken out of Waverley's hands, are already relishing the possibility of having their day before an inspector. Another consequence is that Waverley will finally have to reach a view on the planning merits of the scheme. For the Independent Planning Inspectorate will need to be told if the council would have granted planning consent or rejected the plan, had an appeal not been lodged. A special meeting of the council's joint development management committee will be called to make the decision. The deadline has passed for the developers to appeal over the original application submitted on September 1, so instead the inspectorate will have before it the duplicate applications lodged in April 2007 and the fresh application submitted in May 2007. No-one from Crest Nicholson was available to comment on the issue, but a Waverley Council statement referred to it as "largely a technical matter". Leader Richard Gates said that typically an appeal hearing takes nine months to set up and it was the council's objective that in the meantime the site's future should be resolved through a suitable scaled-down scheme. "If the smaller scheme gets planning permission, then the appeal would be withdrawn." Referring to the current public consultation over scaling down of the scheme, he added: "It does appear we are getting some very helpful and constructive comments, but where we have asked 'are we on the right lines or not?' the replies have been very positive." He revealed that a suitable public response would mean landlord's consent for the scheme (required before planning permission is applied for) could be granted at the October 16 council meeting. Brian Davey, of East Street Action, was adamant, however, that the leaflet sent out by Waverley provided insufficient detail for anyone to comment too favourably. "It's difficult for anybody to comment on a plan when no plan exists," he observed. Mr Davey regarded the appeal as "a technical machination to save face for the Conservatives, who said they would not extend the longstop date". But at the same time, he said, it would satisfy demands for the application to be called in. "If it got to a public inquiry we would be delighted, because we believe an authority outside Waverley should determine it because Waverley has such a vested interest."