CAMPAIGNERS' hopes that the Crest Nicholson Sainsbury's scheme for East Street would be declared dead and buried on Tuesday have been dashed by a decision to extend the longstop date on the contract. Waverley councillors turning up for the all- important full council meeting at Godalming were met by around 40 peaceful objectors, wielding banners and placards. The public then proceeded to take advantage of the full half hour allocated for informal questions before the meeting, concluding with a rhetorical query from Jeremy Hyman. "Who is in charge here, elected members or officers?" he asked. But the protest was to be in vain, as the Lib Dem administration yielded to the advice of officers and a QC's opinion to grant some extension - although not the 12 months Crest Nicholson had asked for. Voting was broadly on political lines, with 26 (mostly Lib Dems) in favour, 14 Conservatives and Independents against and four abstentions. The council, which made clear it intends to negotiate improved terms with the developer, re-affirmed its commitment to the scheme, which many councillors are known to dislike. The principal reason given for extending the longstop was so that Waverley could retain control of the planning process, avoiding the likelihood that the developer would appeal over non-determination and have the final decision taken by the government inspectorate. But it also became clear that Waverley has been warned against laying itself open to a compensation claim. Lib Dem Chris Slyfield said that if the council got it wrong, the penalty might not just be thousands or tens of thousands of pounds, it could be a million. "If we go against that legal opinion we have got only ourselves to blame and the people of Waverley will not thank us." There were recriminations over which party was the blame for the mess Waverley finds itself in - Conservatives for signing the "dog's dinner" of the original contract while they were in power, or Lib Dems for allowing the longstop date to be reached. "The administration has worked hard to bring members to a position where they are locked in on all sides, to a position they absolutely detest," said Conservative David Harmer. All in all, the evening will have been an uncomfortable experience for representatives of Crest Nicholson sitting in the gallery. For councillor after councillor made clear that they didn't find the proposals in the current planning application up to scratch. "If we don't extend the date, the only plan we have to consider will be the one before us," said Celia Savage. "If we extend, it does allow Crest to come in with some improvements. It may be their last chance, but nevertheless, let them do that." Portfolio holder Chris Mansell said that not to extend the longstop would be to use "a legal trick" to frustrate Waverley's proper role in the planning process. He stressed that planning was the crucial issue, not the longstop date, and intimated that a fresh, detailed application for the first phase of the development could be submitted by the end of November. "None of us is in any doubt whatsoever as to what people in Farnham are saying. To suggest that members are not listening is simply not the case," he added. The entire debate was held in open session, councillors referring obliquely to matters in their private papers, including the length of the longstop extension being agreed. Without mentioning actual figures, two councillors made references to aspects of the financial package that they thought unsatisfactory. David Harmer, leader of the council at the time the Conservatives signed the initial contract with CNS in 2003, said that part of the capital receipt anticipated "seems to have disappeared". And Lib Dem Michael Clark commented on a particular figure that he had always objected to, posting a warning that when it comes out, the public will see it as "a great immoral act of the developer". "It's really a sad night for Farnham as far as I'm concerned," he said. "I am on public record as having said that I did not want to extend the longstop date and at the last executive I know that the executive itself was minded not to extend the longstop date." Mr Clark said that council leader Gillian Ferguson in particular had been placed in a very difficult position. "She, like many of us, felt the scheme had reached the point where it had gone on for so long that really we should say goodbye and part company and start looking for an alternative." But he referred to the legal argument as "incredibly powerful", adding that it would be foolish, not just for Farnham but for the whole of Waverley, to have gone against it. Mr Clark suggested that Crest Nicholson should take notice of the views expressed and question whether its scheme could progress. "I don't want the scheme, Farnham doesn't want the scheme, so please, Crest, think again. Do you really want to go on with the scheme?" Speaking on Wednesday, however, Terry Prescott of Crest Nicholson said: "We are pleased with last night's decision. Having worked for the past few years on bringing the East Street scheme to the planning application stage, it makes sense that there will now be sufficient time for the application to be properly considered by officers and members of the council. "The application may still need amending and refining and we have no objection to modifying our proposals further to meet legitimate concerns in this respect. "However, this is a sensitively planned and well-integrated scheme that will improve this area of the town and give Farnham the facilities and amenities it needs. We remain fully committed to delivering it." • The developer's model of the scheme covered by the current planning application will be on show in the Farnham locality office from next Tuesday.
