FARNHAM has four-and-a-half-years of construction ahead if the East Street development proceeds, under the programme outlined by developers Crest Nicholson Sainsbury's at Waverley Council's final East Street consultative forum. With a start on site in April 2007, subject to planning consent, it would be autumn of 2011 before the second phase - covering the current Sainsbury's car park - is fully operational. Under the programme outlined by Brian Ingham, for Crest Nicholson, the four-acre 700-space underground car park should be available by end of of 2008 and the cinema, some of the retail and some of the residential units by summer 2009. Building would start on the second phase, the shopping mall and residential units off South Street, in spring 2009 and last two-and-a-half years. The length of construction was described by one councillor as "very disruptive for the people of Farnham". Anxiety over traffic, especially over that period, and what was perceived to be an inadequate level of parking provision, dominated discussion following the developer's formal presentations. Leader of Farnham Town Council Mark Norris said there would be a big impact on the town if the logistics were handled in the wrong way. Constructing the underground car park will involve removing about 89,000 cubic metres of spoil and Victor Scrivens said he would like to see far greater detail on reuse of material in order to reduce disruption. The reply from the developer was that although they did look to reuse materials and reduce traffic, it was a very tight site and stockpiling materials could increase the timescale of the development. Gary Meyjes, for Farnham Chamber of Commerce, had stressed that the chamber wanted to see a planning application submitted at the earliest opportunity. But he was very concerned that the construction works would take at least four years. "If a reduction in the number of residential units meant there would be no need for the underground car park, then the disruption would not be needed," he commented. Stewart Edge queried why, at this late stage, doubts about the traffic situation were still being voiced with no real figures produced to actually justify what was being proposed. Colin McKay, for Crest Nicholson, replied that the figures would be scrutinised by Surrey County Council and would be made public when the transport assessment was submitted with the planning application. Turning to the amount of car parking proposed, Pam Hibbert commented: "I find it quite strange that presumably we are expecting to have an increase in activity in the town and yet we seem not to be wanting to provide the car parking for it." She said that prospective new retailers will walk away if they do not feel the town has enough car parking, and also that parking spaces tend not to be an adequate size for modern day cars. "In retail terms there is not a great deal going for us in Farnham. If we are going to compete successfully, we have to address this issue." Mr McKay, who had produced survey results showing that demand for parking in the town had reduced, said there was scope for the introducion of "park and walk" - encouraging people to use car parks further from the centre. "We are looking at parking as a whole rather trying to cater for the demand just on this site," he said. "We are trying to constrain parking so we will be able to constrain the number of traffic movements made." And he promised that it would not be "one of those old town centre car parks that we have all come to know and hate". Michael Murphy, of the United Voice of Farnham, representing a wide cross section of Farnham organisations and businesses, was once again the scheme's fiercest critic, putting the shortfall of parking spaces at 200, even taking into consideration an enlarged Riverside car park. He complained that full details of the new masterplan had been withheld from the public by Waverley. "The devil is in the detail and we can only assume that you are too ashamed to tell us what these are." He proceeded to lay into the scheme on numerous fronts, from the size of the cinema to the loss of The Marlborough Head, the bowling green (possibly), the theatre facility and the Gardener's Cottage and the lack of provision for a public transport interchange. "Surrey County Council has made it absolutely clear that they will not be providing any new road infrastructure. "Our town centre traffic is now at saturation point and cannot absorb the extra traffic that any scheme of this size must generate to be viable," he insisted. "Disruption during construction will be horrendous. Thousands of lorryloads of removed spoil, the dust, the noise, the extra workers' traffic, will render the site untenable to the day centre and shoppers for several years. "How on earth can you honestly continue to support and be part of such a rotten scheme?" he asked Waverley councillors,