COUNCILLORS agreed to move forward with the Brightwells regeneration scheme in Farnham town centre this week in a landmark vote for the long-delayed development.

The decision, at an ‘extraordinary’ meeting of Waverley Borough Council on Tuesday night, was taken despite the threat of legal action by the Farnham Interest Group as well as protests in the public gallery over the council’s refusal to allow public questions at the meeting.

Just hours before the meeting, Waverley’s decision-making executive committee recommended councillors approve the funding offer from Surrey County Council and developer Crest Nicholson for Waverley’s land, grant officers the powers to complete the compulsory purchase of The Marlborough Head pub and “robustly defend” the scheme from legal challenge.

All 37 Conservative members present voted in favour of the recommendations, with just three - independent Andy MacLeod and Farnham Residents’ members Kika Mirylees and John Williamson - voting against.

If fulfilled, Brightwells will deliver 239 apartments including 72 affordable homes, high street shops, restaurants, a multiplex cinema and public open space.

Addressing councillors ahead of the vote, Waverley leader and Upper Hale councillor Julia Potts said: “This scheme has been proposed for some 14 years now and this evening we have an opportunity to make a decision once and for all, and move this scheme forward and really make it happen.

“That is a great opportunity and we all need to ask ourselves why were we elected as councillors - because we want to improve our towns, our parishes and the borough in which we live. Ultimately this scheme does just that.”

Miss Potts added the scheme will not only regenerate the East Street area, but will also deliver “huge amounts” of jobs - more than 400 during the construction phase and another 430-plus after completion - as well as hundreds of new homes and a “significant ongoing revenue stream”, between £700,000 and £900,000 per annum, for the borough council.

In the ensuing debate, a succession of Tory councillors discussed the threat of legal challenge but agreed, on balance, that the development’s potential benefits outweigh its risks.

Many Farnham members also cited “overwhelming” support for the scheme in the town, particularly among younger people, and dismissed claims by Brightwells’ opponents that the majority of Farnham residents oppose the development.

One such advocate of the scheme, councillor for The Bourne, Martin Lear, highlighted the positive response to new artistic impressions of Brightwells posted on the Herald’s Facebook page last Thursday (see page seven).

He said: “At a local level, and particularly among parents, people want it. I know this because I have been canvassing in The Bourne, and the answer was pretty succinct - everybody said ‘get on with it, why are we still waiting?’.

“Traffic is a concern, but this scheme is designed for Farnham people, not to drive to Aldershot or Guildford, but to use Farnham and walk into this area to use the eateries, to use the cinema, with their children.

“This scheme has been batted around this room more times than I can remember over the past decade, but on balance, while there are areas I would like to see addressed, this scheme has merits and many more benefits for those children, the future of Farnham, than it does risks.”

The Redgrave Theatre, which Crest Nicholson proposes demolishing as part of the development, again resurfaced during the debate, with the ex-Mayor of Waverley, Liz Wheatley, commenting that fewer than a dozen people attended the theatre’s performances during its final days.

This prompted a protest in the public gallery by Celia Sandars, among those donning a gag for the evening after the council refused a request to allow the public to have their say at the meeting, swiftly curtailed by the Mayor of Waverley Christopher Storey.

Farnham Residents’ councillor Kika Mirylees, herself a distinguished actor, also took exception to the plight of the Redgrave, commenting that Crest Nicholson’s scheme fails to acknowledge Britain’s booming arts sector.

She said: “Not only has society changed in the way it shops and watches films on the internet, but so has the place of the arts in our economy. The arts now bring in more to the exchequer than the financial sector.”

Referring to multiple concessions to Crest’s initial 2003 development agreement, she added: “The people of Farnham have always wanted a development at East Street, but one which satisfies and enhances the needs of the community, not the developer.

“After 13 years Crest still haven’t solved the fundamental problems in their design. Crest’s new road scheme would gridlock and choke the town and they have no solution.”

Independent councillor for Farnham Moor Park, Andy MacLeod also described the financial aspects of the scheme as “puzzling”, pointing to the reduction in the sum offered by Crest for a 150-year lease of the Brightwells site from £8.7 million in 2009 to just £3.19 million now.

He said: “Waverley has already paid £2.5 million for the [old cinema car park] and we’ve still got to purchase The Marlborough Head. So we’re going to be paying out something like £4 million for land to support the scheme and we’re only getting £3 million back from Crest Nicholson.

“I don’t understand the economics of that, especially when you consider the real value of this land - which if you base it on what we paid for the old cinema site - is in excess of £20 million.”

Responding, council leader Miss Potts insisted the economics of the scheme “do make sense”, adding a key benefit is the increase to Waverley’s revenue which, together with the up-front land payment, will repay the council’s investment “within six years” of Brightwells’ completion.