CONCERNED residents have spoken out, through a vote of no confidence, at the way the East Street regeneration is being managed by Waverley Council officers. The vote was the outcome of a charged public meeting held by East Street Action, at which a catalogue of accusations of secrecy and injustice were unveiled. Supporters of the pressure group and other concerned residents packed Church House to back the call for the scaling down of a project which they felt had grown out of all proportion to what was originally intended. The audience was even told by former Mayor of Farnham Bryan Sell, one of the instigators during the '90s of East Street's regeneration: "I wish to apologise to Farnham for any involvement I might have had in launching this horrible project." Protest group members were keen to stress that they are not Luddites or NIMBYs. They supported regeneration, but of a much more limited area. Michael Murphy focused on the eyesore of the cinema site and on the disused health centre at Brightwells. "These two spaces are ripe for redevelopment and we would love to see them redeveloped as soon as possible." Action group chairman Ann Thurston described the Sainsbury's/Crest Nicholson plan as "strictly speaking, not an East Street development" as it did not include the "unloved" Woolmead, buildings on the south side or the Clockhouse development. "On the East Street frontage only the cinema site and the Marlborough Head are proposed for redevelopment," she pointed out. The masterplan is undergoing extensive changes, with the proposed two-screen cinema becoming seven-screen and the replacement Sainsbury's store proposed to be sited in South Street rather than off Dogflud. "But it is very doubtful that the massive size of the development will change greatly, as it is a development-driven by financial considerations," said Mrs Thurston. One after another, members of East Street Action reeled off accusations of flawed public consultations, injustice to current occupiers of Brightwells and councillors being kept in the dark. Brian Davey referred to the development as the single largest building project in Farnham since the Bishop of Winchester laid it out in 1170. "A proposal of this nature requires the closest public scrutiny," he commented, but told the audience: "If you want turkeys to vote for Christmas, don't give them all the facts." He suggested that Farnham residents hadn't been given all the facts and that even Waverley councillors had found it difficult to find information. Turning to the NOP survey results, which are quoted by Waverley in stating that the people of Farnham are in favour of the East Street proposals, he said: "The developer paid for the survey and he who pays the piper calls the tune." The developer, he claimed, insisted on "a series of open questions devoid of any detail" in the survey. Drawing on records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, he attempted to show that councillors' suggestions for rephrasing some of the questions were brushed aside. "The NOP survey is not the only document where important information seems to have been left out," he added. He was referring to the findings of CABE (the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment). Before Waverley selected Sainsbury's/Crest Nicholson as its development partner, CABE graded the schemes submitted by seven shortlisted developers in terms of build quality and suitability for Farnham. But, claimed Mr Davey, part of the CABE summary was missing from the document on which councillors based their decision - the pages that said the East Street frontage and the Woolmead "island" were an integral part of the regeneration strategy and that suggested a combination of developers might offer the best solution. "This generation holds Farnham in trust. We cannot let ourselves be conned into selling the family silver for short-term financial gain," Mr Davey urged, stating that "overdevelopment may have made the Crest Nicholson offer the best for Farnham". Eric Boyle, the pressure group's secretary, dealt with the problems of pollution at the Riverside and flood risk both there and elsewhere on the site, including part of the area earmarked for a five-acre underground car park. And he pointed to four letters sent to Waverley by the Environment Agency on the subject, which he alleged councillors didn't seem to know about until East Street Action started asking questions. "Soon afterwards they started to appear in agendas. Now councillors seem to be informed, which surely is the way it should have been all along." Michael Murphy, dealing with traffic issues, said: "You may think the construction period is going to be a temporary embarrassment - it is expected to last three or four years!" The removal of spoil to build the underground car park alone would require 10,000 movements by 24-tonne "monster" lorries, he said. Taking into consideration also the delivery of huge amounts of materials and the vehicles bringing tradespeople of all sorts, he claimed the disruption would be enough to close small Farnham businesses. "During this period the noise, the dust, the disturbance, the vibration, will have the most appalling effect on the area," he added. Public consultation has been promised, to be followed by the final definitive plan. But only at this point would the traffic consultants be able to start their traffic impact assessments and there would be no further consultation before the planning application stage, said Mr Murphy. "Our only chance to debate this will be at a public inquiry." He asked: "Is this scheme going to be viable, will it generate too much traffic, will Farnham cope, in fact will Farnham survive and are we confident in the way this scheme is being managed? "We should impress upon our elected councillors that they refuse to vote on any proposal until they're told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Roger Steel turned to the effect the development would have on the Gostrey Club and the Brightwell tennis and bowling clubs. "Waverley owns much of the land where this development is going to go and therefore it follows that Waverley's responsibility is to look after their current tenants, because they are going to have a pretty torrid time," he said. He spoke of how the Gostrey Club had no idea of when its building was going to be needed and if and when it would need temporary accommodation. "They need support and they are not getting any at the moment," he said. Mr Steel added that the tennis club had been offered five courts and a clubhouse at Riverside, but hadn't been told anything about contamination and flood risks on the land. He went on to deal with the bowls club and the long delay by Waverley in releasing the Sports Turf Research Institute report which revealed that if it stayed in situ with four- storey buildings built overlooking it, the green would die. Describing this as "a story of intrigue and deception", he claimed that councillors knew nothing of the report when they were deciding to grant landlord's consent for the development; neither were the facts revealed during the NOP survey. The Herald reported last week that Waverley had been found guillty of injustice by the Local Government Ombudsman over an avoidable delay of about eight months in releasing the technical report to the club. The "damning" ruling was reported to the meeting by Mr Steel, who claimed that Waverley councillors still had not been informed of it although there had been three meetings at which they could have been told. "The bowls club has had one meeting since with a senior officer, when they were told that Waverley has no obligation whatsoever to the bowls club - this is a pretty sorry tale," he said.
