SAINSBURY'S has emerged as the front-running developer to win the East Street regeneration contract, amid claims that Waverley council Liberal Democrats have started playing party politics.

The supermarket chain, in partnership with its development arm, Crest Nicholson, is top of the table in a scoring chart devised by Waverley officers.

Each of the seven short-listed developers has received two, one or zero marks for their schemes in five categories headed "relationship with historic core"; "townscape, design and materials"; "mix of uses"; "landscape/environmental improvements" and "accessibility".

In a final table adding up scores from sub-sections under the five categories Sainsbury's is top with 82 points, followed by Friends Ivory & Sime - comprising Woolmead owners Friends Provident - with 78 and Countryside Properties third with 66.

The scoring was designed to establish which scheme best meets the requirements of Waverley's developer guidelines.

Even though officers admit in a report that none of the schemes fully meet those requirements and "some fall significantly short", "in terms of planning and highways issues, the balance falls in favour of the Crest Nicholson/Sainsbury's proposal."

The multi-million-pound development would see the existing Sainsbury's in South Street demolished and a new Sainsbury's built on the site now occupied by the Brightwell Health Centre, whose GPs are re-locating to the new Farnham hospital.

Waverley councillor and East Street portfolio holder Captain Peter Burden, who will recommend one scheme to his 56 fellow councillors in October, told The Herald the scores will play a key role in determining who should get the contract, which Waverley hopes to finalise at the end of January.

But he added: "The marking is a tool but we will also make financial judgments and judgments about the developers' teams, their track record, whether we can work with them and whether they meet the design brief."

Captain Burden said the scoring was done by the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE), the council's financial advisers Cluttons, legal advisers and council officers, and took seven hours.

He criticised Liberal Democrat councillors for wanting to delay the process at a meeting designed to send observations back to the council's policy-making executive.

"The questions asked were really just mischievous and aimed to embarrass."

Referring to a question from one Lib Dem, Captain Burden said: "Anyone asking whether a scheme could be reduced by 150 homes has no sense of reality."

But the deputy leader of Waverley's Lib Dems and Farnham ward councillor, Dr Rosemary Thomas, denied the charge.

"The Liberal Democrats want to make it clear that they want to make a positive contribution to the process but we are asking questions raised by the public.

"People are ringing me up and perhaps rather provocatively saying they think a developer's already been chosen."

Referring to Waverley's development and planning briefs to developers, based on the results of public consultation, she added: "A developer has to be chosen and there should be a clear relationship between the final choice and the priorities expressed by the people of Farnham."

At a joint meeting of Waverley's three overview and scrutiny committees, platforms for the opposition Lib Dems to influence policy proposed by the ruling Tories, the chief concern was over-development.

Duncan Steel (Farnham Castle ward) spoke for many of his Lib Dem colleagues.

"The overall impression is that we're being asked to put in too many shops and houses. It's over-development. We have to step back and say 'yes we want a scheme but not at the expense of Farnham,'" he said.

Fellow Farnham Castle ward Lib Dem Marie King-Hele said: "I think we're going to have quite a lot of problems reaching a decision on this. I think we should ask which developers have ignored the design brief and then ask by how much."

Stuart Edge (Weybourne and Badshot Lea) said the number of homes proposed in all seven of the schemes is "well above" government guidelines.

But this charge was denied by Waverley officer John Anderson and, after the meeting, by Captain Burden.