THERE was a heated debate at Farnham Town Council as opposition group, the Farnham Residents, won the casting vote to submit a written witness statement to the Brightwells judicial review.

The council was split down the middle as the fiery debate reached its climax last Thursday, with four Farnham Residents councillors voting in favour of the contentious statement, four Conservative members voting against and a further Tory - council leader Carole Cockburn - abstaining.

Significantly, the outcome of the vote was then determined by the Mayor of Farnham. John Ward’s casting vote in favour of the recommendation came just months after Mr Ward switched allegiances from the Conservatives to Farnham Residents.

For more than a decade Farnham Town Council has raised concerns over Waverley’s proposed redevelopment of land south of East Street, and its statement to the High Court sets out its “recorded position” in black and white.

Several of these concerns rest on legal issues such as the Compulsory Purchase Order of The Marlborough Head pub and the extinguishment of rights of access.

Other concerns include the use of Non Material Amendments (NMAs) to progress significant changes to the approved planning permission for Brightwells away from the public glare, and questions over the decision not to pursue required Environmental Impact Assessments on key issues such as the enabling sewer works.

Members also raised concerns over procurement legislation and various financial issues, such as whether the project has changed so much that it is no longer the same scheme as set out in the development agreement signed between Waverley and developer Crest Nicholson Sainsbury’s in 2003 - such that it may be advantaging the developer and not now be delivering best value for the taxpayer.

The statement was agreed prior to last Thursday’s meeting by Farnham Town Council’s strategy and finance working group, and recommended to the full council “subject to legal advice that it did not expose Farnham Town Council to financial risk” for final approval.

It immediately encountered stiff opposition from the council’s Tory majority group at full council however, with Conservative councillor Mike Hodge commenting that the statement “would not be helpful to Waverley’s case” in the High Court.

Fellow Tory member Pat Frost added: “I’m very concerned about this because these historic comments, concerns and aspirations were made 12 years ago.

“From my knowledge there was a voice in the town against a lot of this, and I just feel that from people I’ve spoken to there are more who have said ‘for goodness sake, let’s stop all this and get on with it’.

“We should take a step back and not do anything that is going to upset various groups. The people who have started [the judicial review] are people who will be against anything we do in the town.

“I really feel that we shouldn’t leave ourselves open. That’s what we are going to do if, on a 12-year-old set of circumstances, we put forward a statement to support a small group in Farnham who are going to do the review.

“I also object to this group sending letters to the public asking for money to support their cause. That is quite disgraceful.”

Responding, Farnham Residents’ councillor Kika Mirylees said “the situation was different 12 years ago”, and added Crest Nicholson was given the right to develop East Street because it promised certain things that have now been removed from the scheme - including a new Brightwells Gostrey Centre on-site, rather than as part of the refurbished Memorial Hall in West Street.

“They have been given preferential treatment, which is not lawful,” she continued. “I think if we are going to support [this statement] it’s because we feel that what is being done isn’t legal or right.”

Mrs Frost later asked for an apology, after feeling that she had been personally accused of being “illegal” and “unlawful” during the debate. But this failed to provoke a response from opposition members.

Speaking in favour of the statement, opposition councillor David Beaman said: “It is very sad that the East Street saga has had to be referred to a judicial review which will cost council tax payers a significant amount of money and benefit the legal profession rather than used on maintaining essential public services.

“The validity of the contract between Waverley and Crest Nicholson East will now be decided in the courts.

“But whatever decision is reached over East Street the question that should really be being asked is whether the existing 12-year-old patched up proposals really meets the present and future needs of Farnham as identified in the Neighbourhood Plan.”

• Campaigners seeking to overthrow Waverley Borough Council’s current Brightwells proposals in favour of a “lower impact” development in the High Court have launched an online crowd funding page to boost their legal battle.

The claimants, including borough councillors John Williamson and Andy MacLeod, were granted permission to proceed to a full judicial review hearing into Waverley’s management of the Brightwells development agreement in August.

However, Waverley successfully applied for a preliminary hearing to test the claimant’s legal standing to make the costly challenge. This is set to get under way in the High Court on January 31, 2017.

The crowd funding page can be found online at www.crowdjustice.org/case/farnham-brightwells-development.

It comes just weeks after Waverley’s full council agreed to allocate £250,000 “initially” to cover the legal costs incurred by the council in defending its decision to proceed with the Brightwells scheme. Waverley has already incurred costs of £20,000.