As the controversy over Farnham’s Blightwells continues to rumble on and on – here at the Waverley Web, we thought that Cllr Jerry Hymna’s recent comments deserved a post of their own

Farnham East Street road “ improvements” get the go-ahead.

He may be a lone voice. However, Cllr Jerry Hyman deserves to be heard when most councillors stick their heads in the sand.

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 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 significantly relies on increasing traffic congestion 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. 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 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 we will need to involve the police and/or the Courts.

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.