A JUDICIAL review of the Brightwells East Street scheme in Farnham took a step closer to fruition this week after Farnham Town Council agreed to seek legal advice ahead of a potential challenge in the courts.

The decision, to commit up to £20,000 taxpayers’ cash for independent legal advice, comes after a motion calling for the town council’s financial support of a judicial review against the deeply divisive mixed-use redevelopment on land south of East Street received overwhelming support at the annual Farnham electors’ meeting in March.

Former independent town councillor David Beaman, who proposed the original motion, tabled a further motion at last Thursday’s meeting of the town council calling directly for councillor support.

Although members stopped short of pledging funding towards the potential judicial review, they did agree to explore the grounds for legal action.

Mr Beaman’s motion was inspired by a threat from the Farnham Interest Group - comprising planning watchdogs the Farnham Society, the Farnham (Building Preservation) Trust, and East Street Action - to launch a judicial review unless Waverley Borough Council strips developer Crest Nicholson of the scheme and re-runs the tendering process.

Crest was awarded the contract to construct Brightwells - promising new flats, shops, restaurants and a cinema on land south of East Street as well as public amenities including a brand new Brightwell’s Gostrey Centre - in 2002.

However, after more than a decade of delays, the Farnham Interest Group argues that by permitting substantial concessions to the original plans - including the removal of the Gostrey Centre, the Brightwell Bowling Club and tennis club from the development site - Waverley has given Crest a financial advantage not available to other developers bidding for the contract in 2003.

Responding to Mr Beaman’s motion, town council leader John Ward said: “Broadly Farnham Town Council supports the regeneration of what was once called the East Street Area of Opportunity, but has previously expressed a number of concerns about how the project is being handled.

“The town council’s strategy and finance working group sympathises with the concerns expressed by its citizens with the continued use of non-material amendments, which seem to have dramatically altered the approved project. And it understands their concerns that this may financially advantage the current developer.

“Strategy and finance feels that an open-ended financial commitment to support legal action is not appropriate at this stage, but it does feel that the town council should take counsel’s opinion as to whether due process has been followed.”

All but two councillors present at last week’s meeting subsequently agreed to take independent legal advice and council’s opinion, to clarify:

• Whether due process has been followed in relation to the tendering of the Brightwells scheme and,

• Whether the project had changed so substantially that it was no longer the same project such that it may unfairly be giving an advantage to the developer and not now be delivering best value for money for the taxpayer.

Councillors also agreed to ask the Secretary of State to review Waverley’s recent decision to allow Crest to redirect sewers away from the Brightwells construction site - with the potential for more than a thousand HGV movements through the town centre this summer - without the need for a new Environmental Impact Assessment.

Speaking at the Farnham Society’s annual meeting held at South Farnham School on Tuesday, chairman of the society Alan Gavaghan welcomed the town council’s decision and added it proves the two organisations have a “common cause”.

He said: “Legal exchanges are going backwards and forwards at a tremendous rate between the Farnham Interest Group, Waverley and now Surrey County Council which appears to be offering more ratepayers’ money for the scheme, and in the next six months everything will come to a boil.

“But there is no doubt Waverley will fight every inch of the way, and the estimated cost just to initiate a judicial review is between £50,000 and £100,000. If it goes to appeal, the sky is the limit.

“That is a great deal of money and though I’m sure it could be raised with enough support from the town as a whole, it should not be the sole responsibility of the Farnham Society to fund it and in my opinion will require a separate legal structure representing the whole of Farnham.

“It is clear with have a common cause with the town council and need to work closely with them going forward. But we also need to galvanise the public to pledge money towards the judicial review.”

Carole Cockburn, town and borough councillor for The Bourne, was also present at the Farnham Society AGM and repeated the chairman’s call for unity.

She said: “One of the reasons Waverley walks all over Farnham is because Farnham is so fragmented. It has been for years and they know this.

“The Farnham Society will do its bit, the town council will do its bit, and Farnham Residents [Waverley and Farnham councils’ official opposition party] say we’re all rubbish - it’s just so childish and it’s what eventually makes us not credible over in Waverley.

“We’ve got such a big issue here that if you don’t work together you haven’t got a cat in hell’s chance. The town council is seeking legal advice to see whether or not there has been something that we can take to judicial review.

“But if there is a reason to challenge, we need the whole town together. We don’t need people standing on different soap boxes calling each other names. It’s childish and it gets us nowhere.”