SURREY County Council has confirmed it is yet to legally exchange on its agreement to fund the commercial element of Farnham’s Brightwells regeneration scheme.

Details of Surrey’s proposed investment in Waverley Borough Council’s long-delayed redevelopment of a run-down patch of land south of East Street have been hard to come by since its funding offer was unveiled last March.

However, responding to a letter in last week’s Herald penned by Farnham Society vice chairman Janet Radley, a council spokesman has at long last revealed some of the conditions of its investment.

For the first time, the spokesman confirmed the widely-held view that Surrey’s offer is “to the tune of £30-plus million” - representing around one third of the estimated £108m plus VAT total cost of the scheme.

However, he also confirmed “no agreement has been exchanged” with either Waverley or its construction partner Crest Nicholson and, as such, Surrey would have no obligation to invest these funds should the ongoing High Court action against Brightwells go against Waverley.

Surrey’s offer is conditional on ‘pre-let’ agreements being in place for 30 per cent of Brightwells’ commercial units - but the spokesman added this “has already been reached” with tenants signed up for one retail unit and four restaurants in the scheme.

The county council also confirmed Mrs Radley’s claim that its investment is dependent on receiving a higher income from the rent of the commercial units than the interest it will pay on a loan to make the finance possible.

However, the spokesman added confidently that the council’s investment “is expected to give Surrey a net return which will support regeneration and economic growth in Surrey”.

Mrs Radley’s letter last week centred around an Freedom of Information request by a “local resident”, asking Surrey if it had carried out risk analysis on its investment in Brightwells, and specifically whether its net return on the project could prove negative.

Responding, the council confirmed “no actual probability analysis exists”, but added: “A number of scenarios were analysed and the terms agreed with the developer reflect the level of risk that the council will be committing to.”

This prompted a critical response from Mrs Radley, however, who said: “As council tax payers surely we are entitled to know why Surrey County Council is contemplating a risk of this magnitude when in such dire financial trouble.

“With libraries, youth centres, recycling, buses, highways and the fire service potentially facing cuts, this is no time for investment without watertight guarantees by a financially beleaguered council.”

• Surrey’s long-term investment strategy, of which its investment in Brightwells forms part, also faced criticism this week by Labour county councillor Robert Evans after it was revealed the council has paid £12 million for a cinema, branches of Subway and Nando’s plus 13 flats in Worcester city centre.

“This seems a most extraordinary way to spend our residents’ hard earned money!”, said Mr Evans. “If we need to invest in property, why on earth can’t we find local projects? Surely that would have a dual effect in that it would also assist the Surrey community?”

Mr Evans added the land deal has angered people in Worcester “who feel their assets are being stripped by other, more wealthy councils”.

He continued: “Not surprisingly local people in Worcester are pretty disgusted with this deal. They don’t feel that prime land in Worcestershire should be used to subsidise other authorities – like Surrey.

“Imagine if the boot was on the other foot, just how happy would Surrey people feel if say, the centre of Guildford or Staines was sold to Worcestershire County Council?

“I will be writing to council bosses for an explanation and asking questions of our right-wing leadership at the next council meeting.”

A Surrey County Council spokesman said: “Our grant from central government was reduced by nearly half last year despite demand for crucial services in Surrey continuing to rise.

“That is why we have had to devise an investment strategy to ensure we have money for key services such as adult social care, children’s services and road maintenance in years to come.

“This new income will help us continue to provide the vital service Surrey residents need, helping us secure the county’s future.”