THREE developers whose bids to redevelop East Street were rejected by Waverley Council have strongly criticised the way the council treated them during the developer selection process.

Isis, the Sellar Property Group and The Raven Group, three of the council's seven shortlisted developers, had various grievances about the selection process which saw Sainsbury's chosen for the multi-million pound job.

The strongest criticism has come from Isis (formerly Friends Ivory and Sime, part of Friends Provident).

Isis managing director Paul Herrington sent a letter to all 57 Waverley councillors a day before they chose a developer last week, stating that his company was asked by the council not to discuss financial elements of its bid.

"We obliged with this request, assuming there would be follow-up discussions on these crucial matters. This has not happened. The only response we have received from the council has been a very succinct e-mail stating the council has no interest in discussing matters with us prior to making a decision. I find this absolutely astounding."

Mr Herrington claimed that the Waverley officers' report on finances "merely compared the headline financial bids for the council's land interest".

"Our proposal was more complicated than this. A variant bid which provided for the council to participate in a true partnership agreement to share in the success of the development was ignored."

Mr Herrington claimed his company was the only developer to be able to undertake a "comprehensive redevelopment" of the whole of the East Street site through its client, Friends Provident's, ownership of the unloved Woolmead complex and former cinema site.

Any other developer would require Waverley to compulsorily purchase the cinema site, which would involve risk, cost and delay, he asserted.

And he claimed he had never before experienced a selection process with a local council/consultant team where a developer has been selected without any feedback, discussion or communication to a major landowner and developer.

Mr Herrington also makes reference to a comment made at Waverley's executive meeting on September 30 that the council has an "obligation" to Sainsbury's.

"If indeed there is 'an obligation to Sainsbury's', I do feel very strongly that it would have been helpful to have been aware of this obligation prior to the competition and before incurring significant cost and time in preparing proposals."

Mr Herrington also described Sainsbury's plans as "unsympathetic to Farnham's heritage".

Asked to comment, a Waverley spokesman simply said: "The chief executive (Christine Pointer) responded immediately to the letter from ISIS Property Management plc."

And neither Waverley, nor Conservative councillor Captain Peter Burden, wanted to comment on further complaints from the Sellar Property Group and The Raven Group.

An adviser for Sellar told The Herald his company planned a new sports centre and asked permission, at its presentation to councillors and officers, to extend the East Street redevelopment site.

"During our presentation they asked us to clarify our plans, so we prepared further detailed plans. Then we got a letter back saying we weren't asked for this and that our bid was too late."

The adviser said that Sellar planned to invest "£25 million" into its regeneration project and that it "has a lot of experience with sports centres".

"We thought our bid should have been treated with more respect," he said.

Completing the trio of complainants - The Herald has contacted all six unsuccessful bidders and is yet to hear from the remaining three - Clive Wilding from The Raven Group said: "Two things were very odd. Firstly, all our financial details were never questioned, which seemed odd because they were quite complicated, so I would be surprised if anyone understood them.

"And secondly, we were surprised to see a press release on Waverley's website before the final decision was taken that said councillors had been recommended to choose the Sainsbury's scheme.

"That type of thing is usually kept quiet until decided by the full council."

Commenting on the complaints, deputy leader of Waverley's Liberal Democrats and Farnham ward councillor Dr Rosemary Thomas said: "The suspicion could always be that Sainsbury's was chosen on financial grounds.

"The Liberal Democrats wanted to delay selection to create a level playing field and so we could negotiate with two or three developers - negotiating with one leaves you in a much weaker position."

Ian White, director of Nicholson Estates, which is working in partnership with Sainsbury's on the regeneration plan, denied any suggestion that the scheme was a "done deal" or selected for financial reasons.

"I can categorically deny that any deal was done beforehand. This was a fair and thorough competition and all the schemes were examined in a very professional way."

He said he had never experienced a selection process in which a council selects two or three developers to negotiate with.

And on the charge from Isis that the Sainsbury's/Crest Nicholson scheme is unsympathetic to Farnham's character., he said: "I think quite the contrary. I think it was deliberately sympathetic and scored very highly with CABE (the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment).

"We're absolutely delighted to have been selected."