AN important briefing meeting concerning the East Street redevelopment was postponed by Waverley Council at 24 hours' notice this week, because of complaints over the late release of a 108-page report relating to it. The delay means the all-important planning committee meeting to determine the application itself is also postponed and has been provisionally rescheduled for June 11. The postponed technical briefing for councillors, at which representatives of various bodies and up to 15 members of the public will speak, will now take place on May 28. "Some difficulty in accessing some of the technical reports on the website" was being blamed by the council for the situation. But the council's monitoring officer is known to have received a letter on Tuesday from a solicitor representing the Farnham Society, threatening a legal challenge if there was no postponment. The solicitor's claim was that by the time of the meeting on Wednesday, the report (including details of the 5,000 plus objections to the application) would have only been available to the public for two clear days, whereas the legal requirement is for five days. A Farnham Society spokesman explained: "The Farnham Society instructed the legal firm of Howard Kennedy to write to Waverley Borough Council to point out the fact that the council was not following the rules and procedures with respect to the East Street technical briefing that are there to protect the public interest. "The council were advised that if they proceeded they 'would clearly expose determination of the planning application and listed buildings consent to challenge by judicial review'." Speaking about the postponment, Waverley leader Richard Gates commented: "Our number one priority has been to provide the people of Farnham with fair opportunities to participate in the decision-making process for East Street. "We've demonstrated this by committing to holding a technical briefing and by providing extra public speaking time for views to be heard." He added: "Having heard people's concerns about how they felt they did not have sufficient time to provide a considered response to the technical briefing, we felt it was only fair to act on what we were being told and to reschedule the briefing."
