WAVERLEY councillors have been urged to tread carefully, following last week's revelation that East Street developers Crest Nicholson Sainsbury's are seeking a time extension to their conditional contract with Waverley. Roger Steel, of East Street Action, in a letter to The Herald, has urged the council "to be alert to the pitfalls" of the decision they must take and the possible implications not only for Farnham residents, but for all the council tax payers of Waverley. The council has confirmed that the situation will be discussed at a formal meeting of the full council on a date not yet fixed in December. In his letter, Mr Steel pointed out that two- and-a-half years ago, the conditional contract was signed between Crest Nicholson Sainsbury's and Waverley, laying down conditions for that contract to become unconditional. These included that full planning consent must be obtained and that land assembly must be completed, the conditions to be met by December 2006 or either side is free to terminate the contract. With little more than a year to go, Mr Steel claimed, the developer has made no progress in negotiations with the two major land owners at all. "Without their land, there can be no development." And referring to a report in The Herald last week, Mr Steel said it must alarm councillors to read that Crest Nicholson see the development as "at an early stage" when there is only one year left to complete the total planning process. "It must alarm them even further when they read that a 'decision on funding the commercial element of the development is not yet made'." The developer is now seeking permission to proceed with Phase I of the scheme before completing the contractural requirement to purchase the entire site. "In building phase one first, they wish to cherry pick the most lucrative parts of the development of course – the 294 flats, the giant eight-screen cinema, and a pre-let large store," claimed Mr Steel. "Where will that leave Waverley? If it is agreed, it will leave them with a contract that is not worth the paper it is written on since the conditions upon which the contract becomes binding will have been broken. "To make any decisions before detailed and final cost projections are to hand might be very costly to Waverley taxpayers. That makes it all the more astounding that the developer has not yet been able to supply a breakdown of building costs, nor of course the cost of land assembly, for which they are responsible. How is it possible to do any accurate risk analysis?" He went on to suggest that Waverley can take comfort from the fact that there are known alternative developers who would be only too happy to replace Crest, "build a smaller development that would be in empathy to Farnham, still ensure a profit, and without the loss of valuable time". He concluded: "We need a complete regeneration of the East Street area and we urgently need to transform this part of town to restore added prosperity to Farnham before there is any further economic damage to those who live and work there. "So Waverley councillors must stand firm with Crest Nicholson, ask searching questions, and above all keep their nerve at this critical time. It most certainly is not a time for party politics." Replying to Mr Steel's concerns, the council commented: "Waverley has widely publicised the conditions of the contract and the general relationship between the council and Crest Nicholson, the developer. Therefore, it is understandable that there will be speculative comment on the way the matter is progressing. "Waverley's development control consultative forums have provided unprecedented public exposure to the scheme which has resulted in greater public awareness of the issues. "Waverley is well aware of the contract and the need to progress with care and caution. At this stage, it is premature to go beyond the fact that in December, the council will be meeting principally to understand how the scheme is progressing. "Both Waverley and Crest are mindful of the widespread public support for the scheme and the need to work towards a satisfactory delivery for the people of Farnham."
