Some interesting comments on Farnham’s Brightwells.

The Waverley Web received some interesting comments following our recent post, so we wanted to share a few with you.

Plans to deal with Farnham’s Brightwells blight.

For your information, Ms Orton was the Chief Executive of WBC during that time, under the Conservative Administration. 

The following email from Brian Edmonds may be of interest:

He says the number of objections from the residents of Farnham to the Brightwells Yard development was over 5000, “too numerous to list.” The David and Goliath Fight for Farnham begins!

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 alternative consideration, the impact of adjacent developments and statutory obligations, such as those related to 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 containing predicted excursions above tolerable levels. 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 the Farnham locality office appear to be procedural improprieties that frustrate the purpose of Directive 2003/35/EC, Article 2(2)(d), regarding public participation, and Article 4, regarding 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,

meaninglessmud@gmail.com

As I have stated many times (including in the Press and being ridiculed by the 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 administrative hub.
This needs to be taken care of now before the Unitary Authority offers a cover for the guilty parties to escape public ire.
MeaninglessMud