EAST Street Action has been accused of going the wrong way about being a positive influence on the East Street redevelopment by Waverley Council's portfolio holder for the project, Chris Mansell.
Mr Mansell was present at the meeting organised by the pressure group three weeks ago, at which an audience of 700 passed a motion of no confidence in the way Waverley was managing the scheme.
The meeting heard a catalogue of accusations of secrecy and injustice, which Mr Mansell, who had held fire until after the local government elections, responded to in a very detailed statement to The Herald this week. He queried whether the town's interests are being best served by the group's approach. "Councillors are elected to take decisions on behalf of the communiity and officers are appointed on the basis of their professional expertise and diligence.
"These two groups have the main impact on decisions. What effect on these groups do personally abusive letters to the newspaper and mass meeting, hands-in-the-air, motions of no confidence really have?"
"Members are working cross-party to get the East Street project right," he said and referred to "the valuable input" of "carefully thought through" contributions from organisations like the Farnham Society and the Chamber of Commerce and Farnham Town Council's work on the Health Check and Urban Safety Management.
East Street Action, he suggested, was opposed in principle to the regeneration of the East Street area.
"The whole point of a regeneration plan is that development is mixed and co-ordinated," he insisted.
"The evidence of the last 30 years is that town centre schemes which set out to blend housing, retail, commercial, leisure and community features give a more vibrant and coherent environment than sporadic piecemeal development, which was the pattern in the 60s and 70s and gave rise to the bland wastelands that some of the UK's town centres have since become.
"East Street Action clearly wants to revert to that approach."
At the meeting the pressure group had complained that the development was being driven by financial considerations.
"Is it really surprising that Crest Nicholson, a medium-sized public company, expects to make a profit?" asked Chris Mansell.
"Does East Street Action expect a development valued at £100m to be undertaken without financial considerations?"
He queried what the effect on Farnham would be if the developer went bankrupt halfway through the construction period.
And, with regard to Waverley's financial interest, he said the most important point was how the money is spent.
"Within the development there are already valuable community benefits – a pedestrianised East Street, refurbished Brightwells House, significant affordable housing, a revamped Gostrey Centre, landscaped public spaces, Shopmobility – which have a cost, and Waverley councillors are responsible for making the decisions on how the gain will be eventually dispersed."
Speakers at the East Street Action meeting spoke out about the uncertainty facing the Gostrey Club and Brightwell tennis and bowls clubs.
Mr Mansell countered: "The needs of the Gostrey Club are well understood and officers are working away at potential solutions until a best option emerges.
"With the changed situation at Riverside, the same applies to the location of the bowls and tennis clubs, although in the case of the former there needs to be a wider debate as to whether a private club of 80 members should occupy an important green space at the heart of the development to the exclusion of many hundreds of local residents of all ages."
East Street Action has made claims that the NOP survey which showed support for a mixed use scheme was distorted through the questions asked.
But Mr Mansell defended the poll, pointing to changes made in the proposals as a result. "NOP World is an £80m turnover international research company – its work depends crucially on sustaining credibility and integrity," he said.
He went on to deal in some detail with traffic issues, referring to "the familiar apocalyptic generalisations which East Street Action have been offering" and flood risk issues affecting the Riverside, claiming "just because a project is difficult doesn't make it wrong".
He acknowledged that the construction period – the dust, noise and traffic – will be difficult. "Mitigating this will be a key element of the developer's planning application. It will require imaginative thinking."
Mr Mansell pointed out that East Street Action had made no mention of the report of the South East Design Panel, which described Waverley's proactive approach to developing the land as an example to other local authorities.
And he concluded with a challenge to East Street Action with the first of four meetings of the Design Consultative Forum expected to take place on June 7.
The protest group have been invited to participate and the public are also welcome.
"But these are not occasions for accusation and posturing. Hopefully East Street Action will take advantage of the opportunity offered to them to crystalise their work into well- researched and measured statements that will contribute positively to a successful outcome for Farnham and Waverley."