THE revised East Street masterplan had a rocky, but successful, passage through the extraordinary meeting of Waverley council last Wednesday, emerging with the landlord's sanction required for the developers to proceed with a planning application. In granting the sanction, Waverley, as owner of much of the site, has agreed that the Crest Nicholson Sainsbury's masterplan fulfills all the basic elements of the regeneration that it required in awarding the conditional contract. The recommendation to proceed was made with just 25 members - less than half of the total of 57 on the council - voting in favour. Twelve councillors, both Lib Dems and Conservatives, did not attend the meeting, but all the Lib Dems present voted in favour, while most of the Conservatives abstained. Alterations - including Sainsbury's decision to spend £2.5 million on its existing premises instead of rebuilding - see the plans for the £100 million, six-acre redevelopment reduced by 24.3 per cent from the scheme which was granted landlord's sanction in July 2004. While several Liberal Democrat councillors urged counterparts to "get on with it", last Wednesday night's extraordinary meeting was shrouded in secrecy (there were three exclusions of the public for discussions of exempt matters), and peppered with debates about insufficient information for councillors. Conservative leader Richard Gates moved an amendment which would have seen a delay on the decision until July 18, in order for "council to be fully informed concerning the issues related to the granting of landowner sanction before taking that decision". "I am not proposing the landowner sanction be withheld," said Mr Gates. "However, I think it is essential that if this scheme is to move more smoothly than it has in the past three years, that the public are convinced that this council has properly considered all aspects, and not been bounced into agreeing anything Crest Nicholson says. "Frankly, I do not believe that a delay of eight weeks following a three years of procrastination and delay is material. "It may be reasonable to grant landowner sanction, but it is not reasonable to expect council to do this 10 days after the majority of members receiving the submission and 30 minutes after receiving the executive's advice," he said. Included in the amendment was a demand for an update on the latest financial position for Waverley. Following discussions in exempt, and the ensuing legal and officer advice, Mr Gates saw fit to withdraw the amendment, on the basis that the delay could be "damaging" to Waverley. In the following votes, most Conservative councillors proceeded to abstain, citing confusing information and information lacking. "I am one of those people who doesn"t feel that I have enough information about this decision. Frankly I feel uncomfortable about making a decision," said Adam Taylor-Smith. "Does this give best value in terms of our statutory requirements? There are serious questions about best value - is this decision opening the door for a financial scheme which is not good for the council? "I am concerned about issues of Sainsbury's. I don't really understand their position in this contract. It has not been adequately explained in the papers and I feel uncomfortable. "The financial position generally - it hasn't been updated and that is an important issue," added Mr Taylor-Smith. Such statements attracted the ire of Liberal Democrat councillor Victor Scrivens, who in an impassioned speech, remarked: "I am absolutely amazed at what I've heard tonight." "I thought the amount of information we'd been coming out with was pretty impressive. Nowhere did I get any impression, having listened to the leader of opposition, that there were queries and worries and big issues about insufficient information. "Hold on - we've been working at this for years! We're actually still trying to sort out the mess that was given to us when we actually became the administration. When the scheme was too big, remember? "We"ve reduced it by by nearly 25 per cent, Mr Mayor. And we've spent years trying to make sure that this is actually nearer to what the people of Farnham want." However, Independent councillor Vic Duckett disagreed. "It says here 'the revised scheme submitted by Crest Nicholson'. The way I understood it was that it was not us who reduced the scheme - it was Crest Nicholson." The question of landowner sanction itself came under the spotlight, with Liberal Democrat councillor Patrick Haveron commenting: "I don"t think that landlord's consent means very much to us without a planning application. "We really need to get on with this, bring forward the planning application to progress the scheme as quickly as possible," he added. However, several of his Conservative counterparts were not in agreement. "In exempt, we were told landowner sanction was not important," said Conservative councillor David Harmer. "If it's not important, then I don't understand why it's an issue. I think landowner sanction is important - that's my judgement. If it isn't, why have we got a resolution down for it? It must be important." And Mr Taylor-Smith agreed. "I don't really understand what we are committing to tonight, and I, as a lawyer, have looked at the development agreement on at least two occasions and am really struggling to get to grips with what we are committing to now. It was not just councillors who claimed to be in the dark, with the administration also receiving criticism from two Farnham residents about the alleged distribution of 16,000 consultation leaflets. While Mr Mansell stated: "Leaflets describing the scheme have been circulated," both Celia Sandars and Mike Murphy (who had asked questions at the meeting) complained that they had not received such literature. Conservative councillor Carole Cockburn concurred. "I have only heard of one person who received this leaflet in a free newspaper. As Farnham falls within the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, Mr Haveron raised the issue of the Dartford warbler, a protected species which nests in heathland along with the nightjar and the woodlark, and which has halted building schemes across the region. "Planning authorities will have to make the appropriate decision on how this will affect the scheme," replied Steven Thwaites, Waverley's director of planning. Liberal Democrat council leader Gillian Ferguson, incurring the wrath of the public gallery, remarked: "It's so frustrating to the people of Farnham. "We are trying to get on with it. We know that basically Farnham is wanting this development. I know there are objections in the public gallery but as a whole the cry is 'please will you get on with it'. We've had a consultation to last a lifetime, we have enough information. Victor Scrivens remarked: "When I talk to the people of Farnham - not those who talk to the press or moan - they would like us to get on with it. Let's get on and develop it." Mr Mansell attempted to explain the delays to the scheme. "The delay that has taken place has been exclusively the result of the negotiating process between Crest Nicholson, Sainsbury's and St Martins. I'm not going to assign blame, but the point made was that this was totally and completely outside Waverley's control. We were concerned, but there is nothing we could do about it." Crest Nicholson Sainsbury's is now being asked to submit an updated programme featuring planning and subsequent contractual stages by July 18. This date is also the deadline to hear officer reports on options for the bowls club and the Brightwell Gostrey Centre and the level of car parking.
