WAVERLEY council will sign a conditional contract for the redevelopment of East Street after its ruling Conservatives ignored three official pleas to delay the process.

All 31 of the council's Tories voted this week to sign the contract, conditional upon developers Crest Nicholson and Sainsbury's Property Company producing a viable scheme that resolves land, planning and traffic issues.

All 18 of the 24 Liberal Democrats present voted against, along with Labour duo Danny and Peg Denningberg, over concerns that the current plans - still subject to change - are too big and out of character. Both the major parties deny whipping their councillors to toe the line.

The vote to sign the contract came despite calls for a delay to negotiate a smaller scheme from 157 members of the Farnham public, the town council, and a committee of Waverley council. A poll organised by protest group CEASE also supported a delay and a petition from another group, East Street Action, calling for a referendum, came too late to halt Monday night's vote.

The Herald understands that Sainsbury's and Crest increased their financial offer by around a third on their original bid.

Following the vote, the conditional contract is likely to be signed before the end of this month.

The conditional contract has a so-called stop-date of up to December 2006 at the end of which, if no satisfactory planning application has been made, the council and the developers can extend the contract or withdraw.

Captain Peter Burden, the Conservative councillor who has led the redevelopment drive for the last three-and-a-half years, said this week he estimates a final, unconditional contract could be signed in five to six months. It is estimated that building work could start early next year, but all that depends on the May 1 local elections. Waverley Lib Dems are sure to make East Street the key election issue and have vowed to re-evaluate what they see as an overdevelopment if they regain power from the Tories.

Despite growing unease about the scale and design of what developers have unveiled in preliminary sketches, and concern about the perceived haste with which the plans are progressing, no Conservatives voted against the conditional contract's signing.

Two Tories - Farnham ward councillor Carole Cockburn and Ewhurst member Richard Worby - expressed concerns. Mrs Cockburn seemed reassured when those concerns were addressed by Waverley solicitors in the council chamber. But Mr Worby went through no apparent change of heart until after a recess, when he voted to sign.

During a meeting of the council's executive body, which preceded the full council meeting, the Ewhurst Tory gave every impression of voting with the Lib Dems.

"The people of Farnham don't feel represented," he said. "Otherwise they wouldn't be representing themselves. Their views haven't been listened to."

Mr Worby added that comments by Waverley solicitor Roger Benson about the scope for negotiating changes "confirmed what he said last week". Mr Benson had said "no major changes" could be made post conditional contract, and, though he appeared to backtrack on those comments under pressure at Monday's meeting, his attempts would have done nothing to persuade doubters massed in the public gallery.

Speaking the day after the meeting, Mr Worby told The Herald he was persuaded by both Mr Benson and Waverley officer Miller Stevenson's responses to council leader David Harmer's four tests. "I was given the reassurances I had been looking for. Unless I was prepared to call everyone a liar, I had to vote to sign the contract."

Mr Worby denied being whipped. "I'm very much a creature of my own conscience. I wasn't comfortable with everything I had heard but I couldn't find a reason not to vote to sign the contract."

Two late recommendations, added by Rowledge and Wrecclesham ward councillor Dr Genny Lane that the council "reaffirms its commitment" to a scheme sympathetic to Farnham and that it will give public consultation "a very high priority" might have sounded hollow to those already sceptical about the value of a consultation process which has seen three clear mandates for delay already ignored.

It might be that there is a silent majority happy or, at least, accepting of Crest and Sainsbury's proposals. Come May 1, we will probably know.