Sir, – Some of your sharp-eyed readers may have noticed a small item on page 8 of The Herald of July 2l. The article informs the public that Crest Nicholson/Sainsbury have submitted a scoping statement for the proposed East Street fiasco. In the article, the East Street portfolio holder urges the public: "Please take the time to get hold of and read the document and then tell Waverley what you think. The consultation period runs to July 25." A public announcement on Friday, July 21 for a consultation which terminates on Tuesday, July 25, leaves four days maximum, with Saturday and Sunday intervening. Only the current administration at WBC would consider this to be an adequate period for consultation on such a complex document. However, true to form, they can now tick the box and say that public consultation has taken place. Throughout the long saga of this benighted project to build luxury flats on three Farnham car parks and close down recreational facilities, no significant information has been made available to the public without a struggle. Although the current masterplan was listed as a background paper to a full council meeting and should be made available to the public under the 1972 Local Government Act, it is impossible to obtain an unedited copy from WBC. This environmental statement issued by the developer is an attempt to set the agenda for the full Environmental Impact Assessment. It is normal for a competent and informed local planning authority to pre-empt such a move by creating its own authoritative scoping opinion. If this procedure is followed, it is the authority that is in the driving seat. Like the rest of the community, I have had only minutes in which to scrutinise the offering from CNS. I see two immediate areas that should cause great concern to the public and uncommitted councillors. In my opinion, the treatment of alternatives is wholly inadequate and would not satisfy the requirements of the ETA regulations. The other item is the treatment of the issue of the Special Protection Areas and SSIs. In spite of the well-documented English Nature objections to the building of residential housing within five kilometres of the Bourley and Long Valley SSSI, backed by a planning inspector, CNS include the same anodyne and dismissive paragraph that was included in the 2003 coping statement. Times have moved on and this will no longer satisfy the requirements of the habitat regulations. That's the best that I have been able to do in the day-and-a-half available to me. Don't worry if you haven't had a chance to comment. The public can always claim that the ETA is defective at the planning stage. B G Davey, Frith End, Bordon
