We understand from that glossy, expensive ‘news’ magazine called ‘Your Waverley’ that spins through our letterbox from time to time tells us that now the construction of ‘Blightwells Yard’ has begun it is…’set to give a new heart to Farnham Town Centre’.
In case you hadn’t heard developers Crest Nicholson have renamed it Blightwells Yard in Farnham’s Backyard?
We here at the WW thought Farnham Town Centre already had a well-tried-and-tested beating heart located in Castle Street and along West Street and Downing Street?
It may need a little tweaking here and there, as one Farnham resident Mark Westcott recently suggested, a little by-pass surgery wouldn’t go amiss to give Farnham residents a healthier heart with a respite from pollution? But surely not a heart transplant by a second-rate developer and an impoverished council to a location far removed from exquisite ancient buildings, and some speciality shops not just the same old, same old mass high street retailers?
Ah! But when your spending other people’s money – in fact, OUR MONEY – then we have to admit it certainly has our hearts racing and our blood pressure going off the Richter scale?
• ‘Blatant untruth’ appears on the internet
The Farnham Herald letters page, Thursday 20th September 2018 – Vol.128 No.11
– Weighed down as we are by the constant stream of broken promises and ‘terminological inexactitudes’ emanating from Waverley Council and Crest Nicholson over the Brightwells project, it is hardly surprising that neither party has been quick to correct a blatant untruth that appears on the GetSurrey’s website.
Oh! Not the Sorry Advertiser?
The site states, based no doubt on information provided by Waverley or Crest Nicholson, that Farnham residents and councillors claim “that Waverley Borough Council’s decision to approve alterations to the (Brightwells) scheme (in East Street) was unlawful” was rejected by the High Court.
This is totally untrue.
The court actually ruled that those bringing the action to test the legality of the council’s action by way of judicial review did not have the ‘standing’ to do so. Thus due to a tenuous legal technicality, and much to the obvious relief of Waverley and Crest Nicholson, the claim was never heard.
So there we have it. Yet another example as to how this discredited, defunct and as likely as not illegal monstrous monument to commercial greed and municipal vandalism that is Brightwells has been able, through the shameful denial of any pretence of democratic examination, to insinuate its way into our town.
Andrew Jones, Fox Yard, Farnham