REDGRAVE ACTION GROUP
the campaigning arm of the New Farnham Repertory Company
|
|
|
East St. latest |
|
On this page: 25 Nov '05: East St overdevelopment takes a pasting (Click here) 15 July '05: Historic buildings watchdog angered (Click here) 1 Apr '05: Nightmare on East Street (Click here) 25 Mar '05: Diehard Redgrave supporters challenge Farnham Healthcheck (Click here) 18 Feb '05: Ombudsman clears council on one complaint, but is still considering another (Click here) 29 Oct '04: Architects recommend demolition of Brightwell House (Click here...) 30 July '04: East St plan clears major council hurdle. (Click here...) 16 April '04: Anne Cooper: why survey on East Street development may be biased. (Click here...) 5 March '04: Letter to Farnham Herald despairs at developer's vision of a town square. (Click here...) |
East St. “overdevelopment” takes a pasting.“Much of the scheme no longer complies with development brief,” says Farnham Society. Planned eight-screen cinema “far better suited to character of Woking or Guildford”. Town’s roads “already at saturation point”. Proposals for an eight-screen cinema as part of the East Street redevelopment have been slated by the Farnham Society, in a letter sent to every member of Waverley Council. The letter comes as the project finds itself in limbo, awaiting a decision by Waverley Council on whether to permit developers Crest Nicholson Sainsbury to proceed with Phase 1 - expected to include the cinema - before assembling the land for the rest of the scheme. In his letter to councillors Farnham Society chairman Gordon Harris noted that the development control consultative forum process is currently “on hold”. He continued: “The society has long been very concerned that so much of the scheme no longer complies with the development brief and that it has spread beyond the limits of the East Street Area of Opportunity as defined in the local plan; we note with concern that the scheme which received landlord sanction has undergone major revisions which have yet to be submitted to that process.” Mr Harris said that foremost among the society’s aims is that the redevelopment of the area should be complementary to the historic core of the existing town centre. “Development on the proposed scale would be far better suited to the character of the town centres of Guildford or Woking, rather than that of a small historic market town of the character of Farnham,” he observed. Turning to the proposed cinema building, he commented: “The element of this overdevelopment which causes us greatest concern is in regard to the proposed provision of a building to house an eight-screen cinema notwithstanding that, in the scheme that was granted landlord sanction, provision was made for only a three-screen building. “We are not in a position, of course, to comment on the commercial viability of such a large facility, save perhaps to say that it would need to serve a catchment area more like Basingstoke than Farnham. “The footprint, scale and massing of this proposed building is far too great and grossly out of keeping with the character of the town; we are very concerned at the additional traffic which this would generate on the already congested roads into and within the town centre and the additional parking provision which it would require. “Furthermore, we find it difficult to envisage an architectural design of such a building that, with its scale and massing, could reflect the grain and historic core of Farnham. “We are strongly opposed to this element of the proposal and ask that it receive the most careful consideration.” Also singled out for condemnation were elements of the scheme that encroach onto Borelli Walk, a public open park where the developers propose to site a drainage pond to store water arising from the development. Finally, councillors are urged to ensure that no development should go ahead before measures are taken to improve the present traffic situation considerably and accommodate the impact of the development. “We have been very concerned throughout these consultations that traffic and movement issues must be properly addressed before the start of any construction,” wrote Mr Harris. “Contrary to the perception which the developers’ traffic consultant appears to have, all roads in the existing town centre and access roads to it (especially those from the east and south) are already at saturation point at crucial times during much of the day and we eagerly await the developers’ proposals to overcome this.” The council will be holding a series of meetings - of its overview and scrutiny committee, its executive and the full council - on Monday 19 December. The meetings have been arranged specifically to tackle the East Street issues and the result of the tenants’ ballot concerning the proposed transfer of Waverley’s council homes to Weyfold Community Homes. As well as the phasing issue, the council will have to decide whether to agree to the developers' request for a substantial extension to the time allowed to fulfill the requirements of the conditional contract, which relates to matters such as securing full planning consent and assembling the land for the scheme. The above article appeared in the Farnham Herald 25 November 2005 |
|
Historic buildings watchdog angered at East Street exclusion
The chairman of a Farnham organisation set up to preserve the historic buildings in the town has taken issue over Waverley Borough Council's decision to bar it from speaking at its meetings over the East Street proposals. David Graham, Chairman of the Farnham Historic Buildings Trust, claims he has asked the borough council seven times to be included in its development control consultative forums, only to come up against a brick wall each time, not even receiving an acknowledgment.
In a letter to the Farnham Herald Mr Graham claimed that the council is being selective in its choice of the opinions it wants to hear.
Mr Graham said the trust wanted to be represented about its concerns over the future of Brightwell House. "We are at a loss to understand this as the trust over the last 40 years has probably done more for the physical preservation of historic buildings than any other organisation."
Mr Graham claimed that "assuming the decision [not to include the trust] was deliberate rather than down to incompetence, one must question the motives behind the decision to set up the forum.
"At present it is at risk of appearing to be yet another example of cynical token democracy rather than being a genuine effort to produce a scheme that has wide support."
He added: "It is strange that the Maltings and the Surrey Institute of Art and Design have been invited when we have looked after the built heritage of the town for 40 years."
The trust, which was founded in 1968, has around 40 members and is one of the largest building preservation trusts in Britain.
It helped to restore the Maltings and saved several historic timber framed buildings in the town in recent years.
A spokesman for Waverley Borough Council said that it had liaised with the Farnham Trust about the East Street Development Control Consultative Forums with regard to how they are organised.
"Due to the time constraints of the meeting it would be impossible for all organisations interested to make representations at the forums."
He added: "We believe that it may be more appropriate for the Farnham Trust to possibly contribute at the future forum that will address architectural and urban design issues."
The above article is based on one which first appeared in the Farnham Herald on 15.07.05
|
Nightmare on East Street
Critic claims regeneration dream has been hijacked by big businessThe East Street regeneration dream has become a nightmare and perhaps it is now time to call a halt to “this proposed gross over development” claimed Michael Murphy of East Street Action this week. The pressure group has organised an open meeting in Church House, Union Road, on April 20 at 7.30 pm where the case will be put for initiating “a more compatible replacement for the cinema and health centre sites to the benefit of Farnham”. Said Mr Murphy: “It was the dream of many to rebuild the Woolmead in the scale and local materials more suited to the comfortable style of Farnham but the dream has instead been hijacked by a development combo of big business, aided and abetted by our Waverley Borough Council (WBC). “East Street redevelopment, so called, now has virtually nothing to do with East Street. There are no plans for replacing the 1960s Woolmead buildings and the only possible benefit from the present proposed scheme is to put a new building of sorts on the cinema site. “The development proposed concentrates on the Brightwells area, removing the tennis courts, the bowling green, the gardener’s cottage and its garden and replacing them with three-, four- and possibly more- storey buildings to crowd out what little will remain of our open green space. “Who will benefit from the Brightwells Area Development (BAD)? The alien developers. That is for sure. Sainsbury’s, the grocery chain who want a different store to the one that they have at the moment. “And last, but not least, of course, the people of Farnham whose interests are being looked after by Waverley Borough Council, which now controls all those pieces of property that really belong to generations of Farnham people who bought and paid for them.” The master plan for the scheme, according to Mr Murphy, promises the following: “1. Another health and fitness club, as if we did not have enough already. 2. A night club which will cater for some at the discomfort of others. 3. A theatre or a cinema - well maybe. 4. A meagre town square surrounded by oppressive monolithic multistorey buildings, nothing remotely like the artist’s impression. 5. Some 300 new dwellings generating over 1,000 extra vehicle movements per day and the need for hundreds more parking spaces. 6. Some new shops which, if they are to be financially viable, will either need to attract new custom from outside, needing yet more parking spaces, or leech out the trade from our existing shops in the present town centre causing many to close down to the serious detriment of the town we know and love. “A possible benefit might be the provision of some of the homes being called ‘affordable accommodation’ " said Mr Murphy. “I really do not know all of what that implies, but my guess is that such homes will be earmarked for those who are inadequately paid for the valuable jobs that they do for the community. This often appears to mean both partners working and probably needing individual transport, possibly private, needing extra car parking spaces over and above the present miserly provision.” He pointed that Waverley intends to use a new consultative forum before any planning application is made. “Have we really only got this far after all this time and expense?” he asked, referring to matters still to be completed such as an environmental impact assessment dealing with traffic, pedestrian access, public transport and car parking. “We don’t want any half-baked mixture of outline and full applications. We need a real commitment from the development combo for the whole scheme, not a piecemeal development in phases with the most profitable bits done first and the ‘nice’ bits left to be done sometime later, perhaps if at all, if the profitability runs out?” Turning to financial aspects, Mr Murphy referred to a figure pf £20 million to be received by Waverley “for Farnham’s property”. “That seemed a great deal of money but where has it gone? At the last count, this had somehow shrunk to only three million. And there is trouble ahead for the scheme. “Snags apparently unforeseen by our curators are beginning to emerge, all of which are going to cost large sums of money - for example a large part of the site is liable to flood. “Who will pay the extra costs involved? Not the developers, they are only here for profit, not charity. Will it be the grocers? I think not. So who does that leave? Well, WBC. With the remaining three million quickly gone, the scheme will slide into the red and then who will pay up? You guessed it - we, the council taxpayers of Waverley. “We Farnham folk are going to have to pay to have our assets stripped, our green lung spoiled, all for the profit of the develpers and the enhancement of a Sainsbury’s shop. “So what will we, the people of Farnham get for our substantial sacrifice? The loss of this green space in our town centre with its tennis courts and bowling green, the loss of over 500 convenient car parking spaces to be possibly replaced somewhere else. But where? “WBC and the brains behind the scheme thought that they could vandalise the environmentally important green wetland riverside area between the back of East Street/Guildford Road and the River Wey at Hatchmill but they apparently did not do their homework and have had to withdraw their own planning applications following the revelations regarding flooding and contamination. What a waste of time and money. “This all leaves one wondering is it all worthwhile? Perhaps it is now time to call a halt to this proposed gross over-development and instead initiate a more compatible replacement for the cinema and health centre sites to the benefit of Farnham.” A spokesperson for Waverley Borough Council said: “Both the Waverley Borough Council and the developers remain fully committed to the entire East Street scheme, and the people of Farnham have indicated that they want the scheme to be developed as soon as possible. “However, it is a fact that schemes of this size take a long time to work up. The format of the planning applications will be resolved as we go through the development consultative process.” The above article first appeared in the Farnham Herald on 1.04.05
|
Diehard Redgrave supporters challenge Farnham Healthcheck
Method for selecting key issues is under question
Tenacious campaigners for the restoration of the Redgrave Theatre are demanding to know why theatre was not among the options included in the second stage of public consultations over the Farnham Healthcheck. In a move described by healthcheck steering group chairman Robin Crawford as “a picket”, campaigner Pat Larke decided to carry out her own consultation alongside those officially canvassing opinions at a series of healthcheck road shows last month. Mrs Larke, with the help of a few like-minded Redgrave enthusiasts, managed a presence at almost all of the 13 road shows around the town. The result, she told The Herald, was a total of 391 signatures to the statement “We, the undersigned, think that the Redgrave Theatre should have been included on the list of choices available.” “I was not able to ask everybody, but I had very few refusals,” said Mrs Larke, who has also sent lobbying letters to every member of Farnham Town Council and every member of the healthcheck steering group. She explained that she decided to act after being told that theatre was not being included in the second stage of consultations because only four members of the public showed any interest in the subject during the first stage. Mrs Larke’s co-campaigner, Anne Cooper, said they found this particularly puzzling in view of the public’s past support for reopening the Redgrave. In 1999 more than 5,000 people signed a petition for the cause. And in 2002, when SMR conducted a survey about the East Street regeneration and people were asked their major concern, the loss of the Redgrave came second only to worries about multi-storey buildings. Mrs Larke and Mrs Cooper questioned how these supporters could have “vanished into thin air”. The healthcheck has identified a cinema as among the public’s top priorities and it is anticipated that a cinema will feature in the East Street redevelopment. Mrs Cooper pointed out, however, that a seven screen facility is due to be provided at Aldershot within the next two years. She questioned whether a two screen cinema at Farnham would be viable in the circumstances, unless it could be combined with theatre. Mrs Larke agreed. “A purpose-built cinema could not work as a theatre, but a theatre can work as a cinema, giving customers multi use and flexibility. What is more, the Redgrave is there waiting to be used. Another easily provided result at minimal cost - isn’t that what it’s all about?” The campaigner passed the signatures she had collected to Farnham Town Mayor Sheila Scrivens, who passed them to the healthcheck steering group. The group, however, replied that it would not change its action proposals, but would pass the signatures to the chief executive of Waverley Council, for consideration in connection with the East Street development. The Redgrave did not emerge as “an important issue” from the people of Farnham in the early part of the healthcheck. “That is why it was not included in the major measures, which had evidence of considerable support, put forward at the various road shows,” said Col Crawford, the chairman of the Healthcheck steering group. And he told The Herald: “The fact is that we started off originally asking people all sorts of questions about Farnham. We had several thousand replies, but only four said they wanted to see the Redgrave back, whereas the case for a cinema was quite overwhelming. “We have to go by the facts and that is what happened.’ Mrs Larke is now considering her next move - a question to Waverley’s executive about what notice it will take of the 391 signatures she has gathered.
The above article first appeared in the Farnham Herald on 25.03.05
|
|
East St: ombudsman clears council on one count but jury is still out on another
Waverley Borough Council has been cleared of maladministration by the local government ombudsman over complaints made about the East Street development. Local government ombudsman for England Tony Redmond carried out an exhaustive investigation into complaints made to him about Waverley’s decision not to disclose information relating to the East Street development and has found that there was no fault in the council’s process for addressing the issues. The complaints refer to the alleged withholding of information about the conditional contract between Waverley and the developers, Crest Nicholson, in 2003. After a lengthy and thorough investigation, Mr Redmond concluded: “In this case, I have not found that the council has acted with maladministration.” He added: “I have concluded that in obtaining and acting on the advice of its solicitor and monitoring officer, and in taking counsel’s opinion, the council acted reasonably.” The ombudsman has written to all complainants to report his findings and his opinion, saying: “I cannot conclude that you have been caused significant injustice through maladministration by the council:’ On hearing the ombudsman’s findings, the council’s chief executive, Christine Pointer, said: “I was always confident that we acted correctly, but I am pleased to receive this independent vindication, as I believe it will go a long way towards reassuring the residents of Waverley that we always do our best to ensure everybody’s best interests are served.” And the council’s portfolio holder for East Street, Chris Mansel, added: “The local authority ombudsman has rejected claims that Waverley Borough Council was wrong in not releasing the full text of the conditional contract. “The contract had been signed by the previous Tory administration in April 2003, just before losing office. “The Tories wanted to keep the whole thing under wraps, which was why as soon as we took office we put into the public domain a simplified summary. “It’s still there on the website, or is available from Waverley, for anyone who really wants to find out the basics.” The council is, though, still under investigation by the ombudsman for another complaint relating to its alleged withholding of a Sports Turf Institute Report (STIR). This relates to accusations by Brightwells Bowls Club that Waverley failed to release a report which would have made it clear that the heights of buildings overlooking the bowling green as part of the scheme would mean that the grass would be unfit for playing on and, as a result, the club would definitely have to be relocated. The bowls club complained that the council sat on this report for months, allowing the club to believe it would remain in situ following the development. The above article appeared in the Farnham Herald on 18 February 2005.
|
Architects recommend demolition of the Grade II listed Brightwell House
Brightwell "at risk" claim because not maintained to a satisfactory standard.
A Farnham conservation group believes Brightwell House is in such a state of disrepair that it is “at risk”. The Farnham (Building Preservation) Trust’s claim came as Waverley council ruled out an independent panel of architects’ suggestion to demolish the Grade II listed 1792 Georgian structure. In an official report on the proposed redevelopment of East Street, the South East Regional Design Panel, part of the Kent Architecture Centre, “wondered, given the wealth of historic buildings in the town, the building’s present condition and the possible wider benefits”, if Brightwell House could be “removed”. Chris Mansell, the Waverley councillor and portfolio holder for the East Street redevelopment, categorically ruled out the panel’s suggestion. Mr Mansell said in a statement: “The brief for the East Street development envisaged Brightwell House being retained and refurbished.” He added that Waverley, in October 2002, designated the building as a “required item” and it was so identified in the conditional contract. “The July masterplan, which the council approved by a huge cross-party majority, discusses the developer’s ideas for refurbishment and re-use. That is the plan.” The Farnham Trust says it has “serious concerns about the currently neglected condition” of Brightwell House and has written to English Heritage, which advises the government on listed building status, “appealing for intervention”. It wants English Heritage to remind Waverley council, as the building’s owner, of its “duty” to maintain the building. English Heritage said this week that one of its inspectors will inspect the building next week. The trust believes the building, formerly a restaurant adjoining the closed Redgrave Theatre, is a “very poor reflection of its former elegant appearance and is ‘at risk’”. It is also concerned about the building’s planned restoration as part of the East Street redevelopment. The trust says that, thanks to the help of South West Surrey MP Virginia Bottomley, it has been able to inspect the building. It has sent a three-page report to Waverley council referring to an exterior comprising peeling paint, crumbling brickwork, vegetation growing under the eaves, and graffiti. Windows have been covered with steel and plywood sheeting and the doors have been either blocked or replaced with heavier boarding to prevent unauthorised access. “This rundown and neglected appearance has inevitably attracted vandals and has resulted in a number of break-ins, including the theft of an historic fireplace.” The report says the interior is also in a “generally poor condition”, with the floors covered in litter and debris and the walls with graffiti. The ground floor shows signs of damp, and water overflowing from a sink on the first floor has damaged substantial areas of the ceiling and put the joists at risk. As part of the planned East Street redevelopment, developers Crest Nicholson and Sainsbury’s plan to restore Brightwell House - with a view to developing it into a restaurant - but plan to demolish the Redgrave. The trust says the Redgrave’s demolition will not only leave large holes in the north and west walls of Brightwell House, but the effect of the demolition works, combined with the construction of a large underground car park to the front of the building, will put the building’s “structural integrity” at risk. David Graham, chairman of the trust, said: “It’s not being maintained to a satisfactory standard. The council should be urged to take action and remedy the situation without further delay.” Miller Stevenson, Waverley council’s property and development manager, said: “We are continuing with our practice of keeping the building wind and watertight pending the redevelopment.” A spokesman for English Heritage’s regional office in Guildford said: “We are in continuing dialogue with Waverley Borough Council. We’re advising on plans for this area of the town and as part of that, a member of the historic buildings team will visit Brightwell House next week.” The above article first appeared in the Farnham Herald on 29.10.04 |
East St plan clearsmajor council hurdle |
 Redgrave questions
Survey "is either ill-informed or disingenuous" In a letter to the Farnham Herald Anne Cooper suggests that surveys of public opinion could skew their findings to give the Council the result it wants. |
|
The wording of questions in the forthcoming East Street public consultations survey will be critical to the responses received. For example, the latest Farnham News put out by the local Conservatives contains a survey on the East Street proposals. In it there are two questions that refer to the scrapping of the East Street development if the Redgrave theatre were to be kept. This is either ill-informed or disingenuous as the developers have told me that they would be able to keep the Redgrave in a new master plan. They are obviously not going to walk away over this issue.
Request for supporters to act Crest Nicholson have invited campaigners for the Redgrave to write to them direct, copying to Waverley officers and the portfolio holder, asking for questions on the Regrave to be included in their joint survey.
My own letter to Crest Nicholson requests that any questions on the Redgrave should be in the context of it as part of community entertainment complex/centre. Such a centre would offer cinema, theatre, music, lecture and conference space, etc.. The survey questions should be along the following lines:
Ideas from the public on the East Street plans are being fed to councillors who then pass them on to the officers at Waverley. After agreement they are then put to the developers - who are paying for the whole exercise - and only then are questions decided upon. Let us hope that all parties will allow democracy to survive this process. Mrs Anne Cooper Nutshell Lane Upper Hale
The above letter first appeared in the Farnham Herald on 16 April 2004.
|
.JPG)
Sir,|
Artist's impression of Brightwell House after redevelopment, seen from the lawn. |
Red Grave Square"...this square that will have been created out of the ashes of Farnham's unique cultural heritage" In a letter to the Farnham Herald Hannah Williams, one of the directors of the New Farnham Repertory Company, spells out the Crest Nicholson vision of the future.
|
|
Last summer I took my brother and sister-in-law there for lunch; they were totally enchanted by it all - this is what they had imagined Farnham would be like. I dare say when the East Street redevelopment is complete they will want to visit the new shops and cafés in the new town square. In last week's Farnham Herald there was an almost lyrical description of the Town Square, accompanied by an artist's impression. We were reminded of the Cobbett Clock and the restored Brightwell House. No one mentioned that on one side would be a huge Sainsbury's and, surprise, surprise, they forgot to mention that the Town Square would be on the graveyard of the Redgrave Theatre. - maybe it should be called The Red Grave Square! Just think about it, we could be sitting having coffee on the very spot where the famous actor, Sir Michael Redgrave, buried his time capsule! - or maybe on the stage area where some of our finest actors have trodden the boards! It gives me the shivers, even thinking about it and I always thought architects were supposed to be imaginative, artistic people! Maybe they would like to put the bust of Sir Michael (currently in the Farnham Museum) under the Cobbett Clock and then the two distinguished gentlemen could support each other! William Cobbett loved passionately the English countryside and felt deep sympathy for ordinary people who were suffering because of the mindless decisions of the bosses. Sir Michael Redgrave loved everything about the English language and the works of the great English bards. What would they make of this square that will have been created out of the ashes of Farnham's unique cultural heritage? Believe me, they will be turning in their graves!
Hannah Williams, Director, New Farnham Repertory Company
The following letter first appeared in the Farnham Herald on 5 March 2004. |
Sir, - I have spent many a happy
half-hour having a coffee in the delightful Lion and Lamb Yard.
 |