REDGRAVE ACTION GROUP
the campaigning arm of the New Farnham Repertory Company
|
|
|
Public Meeting on East Street |
|
THE EAST STREET DEVELOPMENT
Report on a public meeting held at the Church House, Union Street, Farnham 20 April 2005
presented by East Street Action (a non-political group)
with guest speakers, the three main parliamentary prospective candidates, Simon Cordon, Jeremy Hunt and Tom Sleigh.
Ann Thurston, Chair of East Street Action (ESA)
ESA and other town groups have indicated their support for the notion of developing this area but not in this way or on this scale. The democratic process has not been followed and the management of the project has been highly secretive.
Brian Davey, ESA committee member
Thanks only to the new Freedom of Information Act we now know that when WBC met the developer, Sainsbury Crest Nicholson (SCN), to devise the survey SCN insisted on a very broad type of questioning. An example of this was the question “Is it a good idea to improve town centre housing?” Realistically, and phrased like that, there is only one possible answer to such a question, namely “Yes”. But by saying Yes you have allowed in the high density, four-storey blocks of flats that the scheme proposes, which will be bought only by business people or the retired. From the minutes of the meeting we now know that one councillor was of the view that “the public should be made aware that the scale of the development is driven by financial obligations” and the larger the better. But what went out in press releases was only that the project is not driven by finance but that finance is an issue. Not only in the NOP survey document was public information omitted. The same also applied to the findings of CABE, the Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment. Before Waverley selected Sainsbury Crest Nicholson as its development partner, CABE graded the schemes submitted by seven shortlisted developers in terms of build quality and suitability for Farnham. But part of the CABE summary was missing from the documents on which councillors based their decision - the pages that said the East Street frontage and the Woolmead "island" were an integral part of the regeneration strategy and that suggested a combination of developers might offer the best solution. This generation holds Farnham in trust. We cannot let ourselves be conned into selling the family silver for short-term financial gain.
Eric Boyle, Secretary of ESA
We also know that the riverside site is heavily polluted from the old gas works; it has not yet been surveyed and assessed. Waverley wants to use it for car parking and for relocating the tennis club and the bowls club. If they succeed, they will have to cover the cost of making it safe. Facts about flood plains. The Environment Agency is against new building in flood plains but, where it occurs, there must a means of escape by which people do not get their feet wet. This is because sewerage mixes with floodwater. Also, any new building must not impede the flow of surface water or underground water. If you do build you must provide alternative and equivalent drainage to what already exists. The underground car park is a huge obstruction to the flow of ground water Facts about contaminated land. There are three alternatives to dealing with contaminated land: fence it off and leave it, cap it, or dig it up and take it away (this last being by far the most expensive option). After two years of trying WBC have not found an answer to this problem. Under the Freedom of Information Act ESA has identified four letters from the Environment Agency demonstrating that technical planning had been occurring since February 2003. However, our councillors knew nothing of this until ESA placed the letters in the public domain. Michael Murphy, ESA committee member
The impact of the proposed development upon traffic in Farnham is something that seriously worries a lot of residents, but there is no information available from WBC about this yet. We do know that: · there will a significant increase in pedestrian movements across South Street to get to the East Street development - this is bound to necessitate an extra phase in the traffic lights at the top of South Street. · the plans include no provision for cyclists (which is against government policy). · there has been no discussion of access for emergency vehicles · there is no provision at all for public transport
·
the amount of parking in the plans will be completely inadequate.
Currently there are 518 parking spaces, shared between the car parks at
the South St. Sainsbury’s, The Dogflud and the old cinema site in East
St. The extra requirement for parking occasioned by the 300 proposed
residential units is a minimum of 300 spaces. To this we must add the
parking needed for the employees, customers and delivery drivers of the
new offices, shops, restaurants and cinema: a likely 500 new spaces.
Total requirement: just over 1300 spaces
·
The construction period will be three-to-four years. Do you
remember the debacle at Christmas a year or two ago, when there were
road works at the junction of South St and Union Rd.? Traders lost 10%
of their custom that Christmas - enough to put some of them out of
business. We also know that Farnham’s streets are already at saturation point: it takes only a single broken down lorry on one of the town’s main routes to cause a complete stand-still throughout the town. The traffic impact assessment cannot start until the final definitive plans have been drawn up. But there will be no chance for that assessment to be put before the public and debated before the developer submits the planning applications. Our only chance to debate this will be at a public enquiry. ESA recommends that the councillors refuse to vote on any proposals until they are told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Roger Steel, ESA committee member
The Redgrave Theatre. Plenty of information about the development has been put before the public. But on all the plans and documents you never once saw the word “theatre”. Therefore you could never, ever give WBC your opinion on it. Before we bulldoze the building a straight question about it should be put to the people of Waverley. The Tennis Club was offered five courts and a new clubhouse at Riverside and were pretty pleased about it. They were not told about flooding or contamination risks. They have been told there is no other location available. The Bowls Club were told it could stay put. This year is its 80th anniversary. The developers plan to place four-storey flats very close to the green - at a distance of about the width of a generous living room. This would put the green in shade all day long. The Sports Turf Research Institute came to inspect the green in autumn 2003. They concluded that the grass would deteriorate and die. They wrote a report to WBC but the officers of WBC refused to let the Bowls Club see the report - at least “not until the councillors have had sight of it.” For ten months after the report was sent to them WBC officers sat on it. During this same period the councillors were voting on the development scheme while knowing nothing of this report. In August 2004 ESA and the Bowls Club complained to the Ombudsman about the matter. In March 2005 the Ombudsman judged that “There has been an injustice to the Bowls Club by the Borough Council.” To be reprimanded for injustice is damning, and it is rare. The councillors still have not been told of this, despite there having been three council meetings since the ruling. The bowls club has had one meeting since with a senior officer, when they were told that Waverley has no obligation whatsoever to the bowls club. This is a pretty sorry tale. Simon Cordon, prospective parliamentary candidate for the Liberal Democrat party.
The theatre issue will never go away. The New Farnham Repertory Company should be given the chance to prove themselves and demonstrate whether they are right about the Redgrave and the use of that space for the return of live theatre to Farnham. I don’t want to see East St. isolated within its own management. Let us now re-instigate a single initiative for combining the management of East St., the Borough, West St. and even the Lion and Lamb yard. I’d like the scheme to be environmentally acceptable as well. We have been let down too many times by Surrey Highways. They should be taking the lead on the traffic assessment. Farnham historically has been determined to determine its own future. There is a challenge to see that continue. Jeremy Hunt, prospective parliamentary candidate for the Conservative party.
The curse of East St. is the way that party politics has intruded into it. Farnham is fighting to try and protect its heritage in the face of a huge challenger. Libdem and Tory councillors need to work together, not in opposition, even if that means scrapping the plans and starting afresh. Last spring (2004) I did a survey. I asked very specific questions about the housing. Only 13% of respondents said they found the number of dwellings, 338, acceptable. 42% said it was better to scrap the scheme if the number of dwellings could not be brought below 250. Of the Redgrave theatre, only 23% said it was acceptable to scrap it as part of the scheme. SCN criticised me heavily for asking leading questions. I was amused then to see their survey, which didn’t ask any useful questions at all. There has been total failure by those promoting the scheme to debate the real issues, such as: · Why is the Woolmead not included? · Can Farnham cope with 500 new people living in the centre of the town? · What will happen to the Gostrey Centre and the leisure facilities at Brightwell’s? It isn’t too late to turn round and go back. However difficult or embarrassing or expensive that might be, the right decision must be made. Tom Sleigh, prospective parliamentary candidate for the Labour party.
The Redgrave Theatre should stay. Winterwatch should be enabled to continue operating in the town. The Gostrey Centre should continue to operate on that site, and even expand its operations. Sometimes it’s important to stand firm against the tide of change. Take a deep breath and think again.
Answering questions from the floor: Chris Mansell, Councillor with portfolio responsibility for the East Street redevelopment, said that traffic assessment is the responsibility of the developer as part of their planning application. Michael Murphy, ESA committee member, said that the old cinema was unique in the country. It was a most attractive building from all four sides, was entirely built of Farnham bricks and had superb projection and sound equipment. A new cinema, small, plus a multi-purpose hall would fit on the old cinema site. The former health centre and the three empty premises beside it would be ideal for two-storey dwellings in the alms house style we are familiar with in this town. Anne Cooper stated that the theatre is listed in the same way that a built-on garage might be listed and that therefore permission could be given by the Secretary of State to demolish it. Brightwell House is Grade II listed but the Redgrave’s position needs firming up in its own right. English Heritage write a report last year (itself a good sign) and submitted it to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. A DCMS Minister of State has said it has to go for further consultation; the DCMS seems to be sitting on the side waiting for a planning application to be made. A motion was proposed: This meeting has no confidence in the officers of Waverley Borough Council in the performance of their duties in regard to east Street. Votes against 0 Votes in favour 200 (approximately) Abstentions 2 This account of the meeting was written up from notes made during the meeting. It is not a verbatim record. |
.JPG)
Mrs
Thurston outlined what the East Street redevelopment plan entails,
together with ESA’s objections to its extent and predominating
character.
This
will be the single largest building project in Farnham since the town
plan was laid out in 1170 by the Bishop of Winchester. For this reason
it needs to have the unequivocal approval of its townspeople. It demands
public scrutiny. For this to take place there needs to be a flow of
timely, accurate and unbiased information. Waverley Borough Council
(WBC) claims that the 2004 NOP survey shows there is large support for
the project. But how impartial was that survey? WBC paid for it, and he
who pays the piper calls the tune. The questions in the survey were
highly selective and biased.
The
flats that will be built on the Dogflud car park will be in the flood
plain of the river Wey. An new underground car park beneath Brightwells
is planned, covering five acres; that is approximately the size of the
car park at the Water Lane branch of Sainsbury’s. One quarter of the car
park will be within the flood plain, and will be at the same level as
the river bed: effectively, of course, this means the entire car park is
at risk of flooding. 
The
Gostrey Centre supplies essential services to elderly people in
Farnham. They can get meals there, bathe and have their laundry done. By
night the place is alive with dozens of leisure activities. The
management have been given no indication at all of when or if their
building is going to be needed in this development, nor where they will
go during the works. This development needs far better project
management than it is getting.
I’ve
always believed in a community-led scheme rather than a
commercially-driven one. There is a need for the scheme to bring the
people of Farnham together, not create a gulf. 
I
agree with a lot of what Simon said.
I
am very concerned that the precious green space in the centre of the
town is under threat. I am most impressed to ESA’s commitment and
passion about East Street. How many more people, buildings and cars can
be squeezed into the town? Is the seven-screen cinema issue being used
as a carrot or even a bribe in this process? Yes, we should be building
new homes, but on brown field sites and for young people and key
workers.
 |