The two local authorities involved in the controversial Farnham retail development on East Street are collaborating in an attempt to give it the kiss of life.
Surrey County Council and Your Waverley, both of whom are in their final stages due to local Government Reorganisation. A change that will see both abolished is to meet and devise a business plan.
They aim to develop a plan that addresses the unpopularity of the retail units, many of which have been difficult, if not impossible, to lease. Several have been offered free for the first year, despite being advertised nationwide.
When Crest Nicholson unveiled its ambitious scheme to breathe new life into a tired corner of Farnham’s East Street at the turn of the millennium, it promised much: Modern retail outlets, a leisure hub, restaurants, a cinema and residents’ apartments. All are intended to transform it into a vibrant part of the town.
Fast forward in time – what does Farnham have? What many of its objectors predicted. Delays, planning rows, numerous changes and disappointments, as well as a financial headache for Surrey’s pension fund and Waverley’s depleted coffers. The loss of anchor tenants – recently, Coppa Club has put the final nail in the coffin. Numerous cash injections from the county bean counters have only succeeded in stemming the financial disaster, which has hit the beleaguered developer.
Tumbleweed blows around Farnham’s Brightwells Yard
Surrey council chief has urged naysayers to look beyond the gloom and embrace a brighter outlook for the landmark redevelopment in Farnham.
Cllr Natalie Bramhall has hit back at claims that Surrey County Council (SCC) isn’t doing enough to promote Brightwells Yard, with concerns being raised that the area could become a “desolate ghost town” and “blight on Farnham”.
Many Farnham residents believe it has already blighted the town.
As I have stated many times (including in the Press and been ridiculed by FTC for the idea) I remain convinced that the only way residents will ever have a solution to this is to move the library. museum and FTC into the space along with community organisations with a joint admin hub.
This needs acting on now before the Unitary Authority offers a cover for the guilty parties to escape public ire.
MeaninglessMud
The following email may be of interest, the number of objections from the residents of Farnham was over 5000, “too numerous to list.”
13 August 2009
From: Brian Edmonds
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 18:59:02 +0100
To:
Conversation: East Street Planning Approval
Subject: East Street Planning Approval
Dear Ms Orton,
The East Street development appears to have been approved without the suitable and sufficient Environmental Impact Statement required by primary legislation Directive 97/11/EC “Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment” and SI 1999 No 293 “The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999.”
Critical issues omitted from the EIA include “An outline of the main alternatives studied by the applicant or appellant and an indication of the main reasons for his choice, taking into account the environmental effects.” Without alternatives consideration, the impact of adjacent developments and statutory obligations such as for those for Public Health and access to Educational resources was not considered. It is also understood that the Surrey Highways Authority did not complete a risk assessment for the development creating an indeterminate health threat from pollution levels that are already contain predicted excursions above intolerable. Ref SI 2007 No. 64 The Air Quality Standards Regulations maintenance of air quality standards
The aim of public consultation is “so that electors can make their objections and have them properly considered.” The decision not to publish objections and the extraordinary difficulty in gaining public access to the EIA at Farnham locality office appears procedural impropriety that frustrates the purpose of Directive 2003/35/EC Article 2(2)(d) public participation and Article 4 access to justice.
Development Contract SCHEDULE 2 further questions the legitimacy of the planning decision, as the contract does not recognise that the EIA management systems are Company specific. Perhaps in consideration of these issues the Authority might consider if the East Street planning application, as approved, is within statutory powers.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Edmonds,