A GROUP set up to try to get Farnham speaking with one voice over the East Street development, is poised to demand a reduction in the scale of the proposals. The group's statement, welcoming and supporting the regeneration of East Street together with the neglected buildings in Brightwell Gardens, is to be delivered to both Waverley Borough Council and to the developers, Sainsbury/Crest Nicholson. The statement comes with a sting in the tail. "We are firmly of the view that the scale of the proposed development is too extensive and must be reduced," Waverley and the developers will be told. "We therefore urgently request that Waverley Borough Council reconsider their support for the development proposals in their current form." The missive was the unanimous result of a meeting last Friday, hosted by Sir Ray Tindle, involving representatives of a wide spread of Farnham organisations. The meeting was chaired by Roger Steel, chairman of a five-member task group of people believed to have the respect of councillors, including a Farnham developer and an architect. The group was set up following a forum organised in July by former Mayor of Farnham Bryan Sell. Major Sell and task group members were joined at Friday's meeting by people speaking for the Farnham Building Preservation Trust, Farnham Independent Retailers, the Farnham Society, Farnham Visitors' Council, Farnham Healthcheck, the Chamber of Commerce, Farnham Youth Initiative, Rotary and East Street Action. Those involved will now go back to their committees to gauge support for establishing a single monitoring group to ensure a unified response to the planning process. "There is widespread feeling about this development," said Roger Steel. "The thing we all agreed is that the proposal is too extensive. "We are in agreement we need a cinema, we need some more residential accommodation, we need some more shops - it is a question of scale." Mr Steel said everyone was aghast at the thought of a 1,200 -seater cinema, and no one wanted 300 more residences. "There is no doubt about it, the master plan has been drawn up based on the generation of money," he asserted. But in the opinion of the group, he said, it was still possible to come up with a scheme in character with Farnham that would still be profitable for both council and developers. "The purpose of this group getting together will be to try to influence our representatives on the council and the developer and to point out from the people who live and work and depend on the health of Farnham that what is at the moment intended is so vast, it is going to cause major problems and change the character of Farnham for ever." He added: "It's not going to be easy. There is a contract and Waverley Council and Crest Nicholson are anxious to go ahead. But our belief is that Farnham has taken 1,000 years to evolve and we don't want it to be thrown away in just one generation." Mr Steel said that in his opinion, Farnham Town Council's vision of what the scale of the development should be like was the right one. The town council, in resolutions sent to Waverley Council in 2003 and 2004, had called for a big scaling down of the proposals - in particular the number of residential units - and for no buildings more than three storeys high. Mr Steel said it was fortuitous that on Thursday last week the town council confirmed that its view had not changed. Ann Thurston, of East Street Action, had asked at a meeting of the full town council if the council stood by its previous strong opposition, in the light of comments it had forwarded to Waverley concerning the current proposals. The council, for instance, had made comments about a proposed residential block close to the river, when before it had been against the block being built at all. Councillor Victor Scrivens commented that the council had to "live in the real world" and push for the best design in case elements of the plan were approved despite their opposition. After a debate, councillors agreed that to write to Waverley and to the developer, pointing out that the views they previously expressed about the development had not changed. The letter will make clear that comments submitted concerning the design were made without prejudice.
