Despite claims that a new road layout will cause traffic congestion, forcing people to walk or cycle along East Street, Waverley Planners voted unanimously to amend the layout.
Cllr Jerry Hyman warned Waverley Planners last night that agreeing to the amendments of the legal agreement with developers of Brightwells Crest Nicholson to amend the road layout should have been advertised and consulted upon.
Jerry’s on the warpath over Farnham’s roads.
However, Cllr Andy MacLeod, Chairman of the Blightwells Board, told colleagues that any further road work delays would be unacceptable for a scheme that will take over 21 years to complete. He said the developer hoped to hand over the scheme to Surrey County Council by Christmas. Any delays would impact businesses.
However, Cllr Hyman called for a deferment, claiming:
The changes proposed for relocating the bus stops would have a detrimental effect on East Street businesses and affect response times for emergency vehicles.
“We are risking the future of our town and our businesses, and we should defer a decision until there has been proper public consultation. Let our residents have their say. Surrey County Council pretend there will be no impact – but there will!’
The amendment to the legal agreement was approved unanimously. Cllr Hyman is not a planning committee member, so could not vote.
WA/2023/00395 – Application under Section 106a of the Town & Country Planning Act to modify the legal agreement through a Deed of Variation to Section 106 relating to WA/2016/0268 to allow amendments to the highway layout along East Street. An Environmental Statement accompanies this application. LAND AT EAST STREET, FARNHAM
How can changing the intended layout of East Street from semi-pedestrianised (buses and deliveries only) going East to single lane for ALL traffic going West cause congestion? The opposite is true as freeing up East street to all traffic will take pressure away from town centre streets.
Only time will tell!
It is of public concern that the Air Quality Note choses to advise that the air quality effects are “not considered significant” by means of a desk top review without live field measurements of current pollution levels and a prediction of future levels. The Local Planning Authority officers who approved the supporting technical assessments for this section 106a application should be clearly identified as competence is a critical legal requirement of this environmental assessment.
Unless already available, it remains for Cllr Andy MacLeod, as Chairman of the Brightwells Board, to publish the report describing the management processes and controls used to confirm that the Developer has complied with its Environmental Impact Assessment and critically the Local Plan Part 1 Policy CC2 which requires the climate change condition that “new dwellings shall meet the requirement of 110 litres of water per person per day.”
Once again Crest have said “Jump” and the reply from Waverley Councillors is “How high shall we jump”
How right you are Robert. It would appear that some developers in Waverley are invincible.
Strictly speaking, the changes to the highways element of the Brightwells scheme have not yet been ‘given the go-ahead’, as the Committee decision was to delegate the decision to modify the a106 agreement to the Head of Planning, and there is no indication that she has yet done so.
Nor has a planning application yet been submitted (by Crest) to extend the Red Line boundary to encompass the changes, and to change the Masterplan (removing the original pedestrianisation proposals), and to vary the Phasing Plan – which are all controlled by Conditions 1 and 2 of the extant consent WA/2016/0268.
The issue here is is not a minor technicality in law – far from it. It is about integrity. On the ground, it is about the combined impact of Crest’s East Street proposals with the wider FIP proposals for the town centre, of which they are an integral part, and to which the s106 would contribute funding. Rather than mitigate the impacts of the Brightwells scheme, the s106 does the opposite.
Many local businesses and residents are deeply concerned that the town will become inaccessible, to the extent that many businesses (particularly retail) will become unviable. Their concerns are valid, and as Councillors we should be representing them faithfully. The FIP relies on increasing traffic congestion significantly to force a manifold increase in walking, cycling and bus use (‘Active Travel’).
To be fair, some Members of the Farnham Board appear to share the residents’ and businesses’ concerns but it seems they’re afraid to voice them, and are being drowned out by Surrey’s determination to proceed regardless of the consequences.
With the Councils unable to tell the truth, we are caught in a perpetual Groundhog Day. Some will recall that Crest obtained their original Brightwells 2009 consent by deception, having pretended that they had modelled the pedestrianisation proposals using Surrey’s Paramics model for Farnham, and that Surrey and Waverley have covered up that deception ever since.
15 years on, the original impractical pans are now being replaced by new impractical plans, and it appears that Crest’s falsified Paramics modelling is now replaced by equally suspect SCC Paramics modelling.
Hence the big issue is that Surrey Highways are now claiming that they have successfully modelled the detailed plans for the FIP’s new contraflow and junction arrangements in Paramics, but cannot demonstrate it. Surrey and Waverley both state that the proposed s106 variation relies on that modelling, yet Crest’s latest Transport Assessment makes no mention of it, and the required environmental assessment is being evaded.
Thus our task now is to get SCC to demonstrate their new Paramics Modelling. Does it withstand scrutiny?
It’s simple enough – SHOW US THE MODELLING.
I expect SCC will continue to refuse to do so, and that we will need to get the police and/or the Courts involved.
The law simply requires that they be honest and open with residents. I don’t know why Mr Wright-Smith seems so fundamentally opposed to that concept.
What is negative about expecting better for Farnham, and striving for it? After all, that was, and remains, the purpose of Farnham Residents.
I am certainly not opposed to honesty and transparency but perhaps Cllr Hyman should try taking some of his own medicine. He clearly has a hidden agenda here that goes all the way back to 15 years ago, as he says, to “original Brightwells 2009 consent by deception”
So what we have here is an ongoing vendetta against anything associated with what used to be called the East Street Regeneration Project. A vendetta that is dressed up as “upholding the law and holding SCC to account” over traffic modelling (another of Cllr Hyman’s obsessions)
I like thousands of others were inspired by Cllr Hyman’s leadership (along with other local heroes) in standing up against this ill-conceived and outdated scheme. But it’s here now and we have to make the best of it.
A failed development would be catastrophic for Farnham.
Cllr Hyman states “many businesses and local residents are deeply concerned” and “members of the FIP’s Farnham Board are too scared to speak out”
This sounds like something straight out of a tabloid newspaper and does not stand up to scrutiny.
So in the interest of honesty and transparency Cllr Hyman, any names to back up your claim?
I’m sorry Mr Wright-Smith but I find your advice here self-contradictory and confusing. I make no apology for standing up for the laws which dictate the processes and constraints that protect our borough. I’m bound by the Waverley and Farnham Residents Constitutions which both require that I do so.
The people who defy that protection are depriving us of the infrastructure and mitigation necessary to avoid harm from the cumulative effects of development. Our towns and villages are paying the price. Please don’t support the people causing the harm !
I’ve seen a few of your comments on this site and in the Herald which seem to display a good knowledge of council procedures and wise words, which are always appreciated. However, it does seem odd that you say you’re ‘not opposed’ to honesty and transparency, particularly when supporting the Councils’ wrongdoing. To claim to have been ‘inspired’ by me (and some unnamed others) whilst your kind ‘praise’ here starts with a vague accusation of hypocrisy also seems self-contradictory, and I’ve never seen any comments from you supporting my position – indeed quite the opposite. You do always seem to take any opportunity to criticise Cllr Cockburn and I, though I wouldn’t call it a vendetta. FYI my own scrutiny of SCC’s misdeeds goes back to 2001, and was inspired by many years of Farnham Society and residents’ efforts.
Apparently the consistent and admirable position of numerous residents is no longer an inspiration to you ; it’s now a damnable ‘obsession’. Are you really advising that we should all now support the continued deceptions and lawbreaking of the Councils in respect of the SCC/Crest East Street and town centre highways proposals (and elsewhere)? That “making the best of it” depends upon continued deception and lawbreaking? That all residents and Councillors should now willingly ditch their principles to support the “ill-conceived” plans, and sacrifice even more of our town and its businesses to the moral swamp upon which Brightwells was built? It seems so.
In response to your questions:
You’ll recall that when we first came out of Covid lockdown, Farnham businesses had to intervene to force ill-advised Councillors and SCC to remove the single-lane restriction in The Borough, as SCC’s impositions were causing gridlock, harming businesses’ recovery ; please don’t deny their concerns and demean them. I doubt you really expect me to list all the businesses concerned here (without their prior consent, which I have not sought). A number of them have objected publicly on the planning website and in LLF meetings.
In respect of the FIP ‘Farnham Board’ Members, the webcast of last June’s Board meeting shows Cllr Powell’s concerns regarding the “unrealistic” claims of SCC, and our longheld concerns for Upper Hale and Hale suffering the displaced traffic from the FIP town-centre proposals. The position of Cllr Fairclough was also made quite clear in a Herald article last summer. When I spoke to them both before the start of the last Board meeting, regarding the need to force SCC to demonstrate their traffic modelling, their response was ‘good luck with that’. They seemed frustrated. Other past and present Board members also voiced concerns about the impacts and the effects on businesses, including Cllr Michaela Martin and if I recall correctly, Cllr Ward and Cllr Clark.
I don’t know precisely where each of them stand now, but they all committed to Farnham Residents’ Constitution, and I agree with them when they say that we need Councillors to stand up strong to Surrey. Obviously I also support their efforts to get funding for traffic solutions, with Surrey’s initial ‘promise’ of £250 million having melted away, but it must be done properly, with transparency and integrity … and without inconsistency.
I hope this answers your questions sufficiently, perhaps we can meet up to discuss our hidden agendae? Either way, perhaps you’d like to clarify your own position in respect of the two big local questions. We really do need all residents (and Councillors!) to let us know where they stand on this :
1. Do you agree that we should force Surrey to ‘come clean’ and provide public demonstration(s) of their fantastic new Paramics traffic modelling, upon which their East Street position relies, or should we allow the ‘ill-conceived’ plans to proceed without due scrutiny, to enable the resulting deceptions and ‘catastrophes’ to continue?
2. Do you agree that if we allow SCC to remove roadspace to deliberately congest the town before they provide the ‘promised’ Hickley’s/A31 bypass solution, then we are unlikely to ever get that solution (because the town centre roads provide the only alternative route during lengthy bypass works)?
You are correct in your assessment, that I am critical of both you and Cllr Cockburn as you both seem to fall into the same category, that of persistently pursuing your own agendas to the point that it becomes painful to keep listening.
Few things are more irritating than when someone who is wrong is also very effective in making their point. As Mark Twain said “never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel”
Cllr Cockburn, however, differs to the extent that she has provided Farnham with something of practical use – the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan. Which is an exemplar Neighbourhood Plan that other Parishes should and do aspire to.
But it is a shame that some other Councillors seem incapable of rising to the occasion to make such positive contributions to the town. I fear sometimes, slavishly conforming to rules & red tape is often the last refuge of the unimaginative.
I must decline your offer to meet as I don’t have an agenda in my back pocket, so I fear any conversation would be way too one-sided to be useful.
In conclusion my final words are regarding the FIP, which are that pessimists are people who complain about the noise when opportunity knocks.
Carole Cockburn is not the only one who did something of practical use! Far be it for us to stand up for Cllr Hyman – BUT. Isn’t the reason Waverley Borough Council has a stock of council properties is a DIRECT result of his actions way back in the 90’s when he single-handedly stopped the council from transferring to a housing association its complete housing stock. under its large Scale Voluntary Transfer Scheme. Is the reason you cannot find the time in your busy schedule to meet the Councillor due in part due to the fact that the WW cannot actually find a JohnFWSmith who lives in or around Farnham?
My goodness WW you are weaving a mysterious web indeed. Quite shocked you’ve had to resort to this type of behaviour in defence of your nearest and dearest. But for those readers who may be convinced by your paranoia, I work as a pilot for an international air carrier and spend half of my time living abroad and the other half in Farnham, renting several rooms at a property in Rowledge. I don’t expect I’ll receive an apology though.
Just to add, if what you say about the housing stock is true, then I unreservedly apologise for the remark about Mr Hyman
WW believes your apology will be welcomed and very much appreciated.
Hello Waverley Web, I refer to your remark made to me on 11 April:
“Is the reason you cannot find the time in your busy schedule to meet the Councillor due in part due to the fact that the WW cannot actually find a JohnFWSmith who lives in or around Farnham?”
For my part, when you corrected me, I had the good grace to apologise for my remark regarding Cllr Hyman
And,we sincerely apologise for being unable to find a JFWS living in or around Farnham.
Ha Ha – not even close
Bu yüzden ondan iyi geceler, benden de iyi geceler. Güle güle
Ha Ha – close but still so far away!