Sir, – So the long-awaited planning application for East Street has finally been submitted to Waverley Borough Council (Farnham Herald, September 8). Apparently it consists of "an outline application, with detailed drawings of phase 1A". This form of application appears to be in direct conflict with the existing contract and the WBC scoping opinion issued on August 1. WBC advised the applicant that: "Paragraph 1.10 continues to indicate a 'hybrid' application based on a part outline and a part full application. This is not consistent with the council's understanding of the developer's intentions for form and content of applications and which have yet to be agreed by the council as an appropriate submission strategy." It is curious that the comment regarding "submission strategy" should be included in a formal response to matters concerning the environmental impact assessment. This advice was given by WBC acting in its capacity as local planning authority. The form of the application is a crucial contractual matter that should properly be addressed by WBC acting in its other role as principal landowner and development partner. WBC is expected to be scrupulous in keeping the two roles separate, or risk a charge that when determining the application, their impartiality has been tainted. In the event, the documents supplied to WBC by CNS do not appear to be valid. An EIA planning application must provide a full EIA and non-technical summary right at the start of the planning process. The planning process will not have started until any member of the public can contact WBC, request sight of the EIA and non-technical summary and be provided with these documents. Some EIA information was supplied but advice has been received that alterations to text and plans are anticipated and consequently scrutiny of the documents is now in abeyance. The planning process has not started. WBC councillors of both parties have so far stood firm against a phased development that could allow the developer to "cherry-pick", complete part of the development, then walk away from the less-attractive part, leaving local council tax payers to bear the cost of sorting out what is left. A "hybrid application based on a part outline and a part full application" effectively gives the developer his desired phased development. In May this year, a European Court of Justice judgement ruled that any outline planning application containing significant reserved matters will require a separate new EIA when the outline consent becomes a detailed planning application. The proposal put forward by CNS neatly divides the East Street project into two parts. The outline planning consent may never become a detailed planning consent. WBC councillors would be unable to compel the developer to go forward and, even if they were, the developer could prevaricate and never submit a satisfactory EIA. However, provided WBC councillors are prepared to stand firm, it is possible for them to regain the initiative and insist that the developer submits a full, detailed planning application for the entire site. Written into the contract for the East Street development is a clause that allows either party to walk away if certain conditions have not been met by December 31, 2006 – one condition is that the developer must have obtained satisfactory planning permission. The contract requires approval of all reserved matters pursuant to the satisfactory planning permission and full buildings regulations and bye-laws approval. Clearly, the proposed hybrid planning application would prevent such satisfactory planning permission being granted. The long-stop date of December 31, 2006, is the only powerful lever left to WBC councillors. Undoubtedly, councillors will now be pressured into extending the long-stop date beyond December. If they do, they will have surrendered unconditionally to the developer and never be able to regain any control of the East Street project. To date, the Lib Dem administration has been able to justifiably claim that its management of the East Street project has largely been as a result of an onerous contract signed by the previous Conservative administration. Should the current executive now approve two significant contractual alterations, a) acceptance of a hybrid planning application and b) extension of the long-stop date, then the full responsibility for the East Street debacle will rest with the Lib Dems. The party has to face the electorate next May and would have to defend any last-minute surrender to the developers. B G Davey, Frith End, Bordon