"Oh what a tangled web we weave, when once we practise to deceive.
Has Michael Blower, a former Waverley Mayor, borough Councillor, highly respected Farnham architect and a former partner of Guildford’s Scott, Brownrigg & Turner, devised a scheme that could bring about a volte-face to the presently proposed town redevelopment?
Here’s a letter we have received at the Waverley Web from Jim Duffy a local architect about… yes you guessed! “The slow motion car crash” about to happen with the ‘Brightwells, Farnham -Retail Investment Risk Assessment’ Not that the one sitting in the Giant Chamber pot will take any notice!And… listen very carefully to the interview with the BBC!
We have! And, Pottymouth says, quite clearly, that they have just had a Judicial Review and were successful. .. Let us assure everyone in the borough of Waverley.
There has not been a JR and so she lies – and lies!
Dear Surrey County Councillors
Please see this link for an interview yesterday with me on BBC Radio Surrey, including a response by Waverley Councillor Julia Potts and a statement by SCC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04tllk1 BBC Surrey – Breakfast on BBC Surrey, 17/03/201
Click on the picture of the presenters and a slider appears. Move slider to 1.39:40
In the interview you can hear how narrow but important the focus of my critique is. It is all about the unit shops rather than the restaurants, cinema, food store or housing. These other uses are much less location-sensitive and should be fine. These are my two main concerns:
1.Off-Pitch location
My contention, based on considerable experience and market knowledge, is that this location is completely “off-pitch” for mainstream retail and it can’t be fixed. Ms Potts doesn’t respond at all to this point.
This isn’t true for retailers who have no re-generation agenda. They simply want the best available shop in the position of highest footfall. This isn’t East Street and never will be. Despite Ms Potts claims, a new Cinema, restaurants and food store will not provide sufficient new daytime footfall to “anchor” the new comparison-goods unit shops. A smallish scheme, such as this, would only work as a well-connected extension to the existing “prime pitch”. The reality is that the Brightwells site suffers badly from being across a busy traffic junction and in the middle of a secondary shopping area with an existing high vacancy rate.
2. SCC’s high-risk gamble with public money
Surrey County Council has chosen to invest in a scheme that has been passed over for 15 years by all the top industry investors. Doesn’t this fact alone tell you this is unwise and carries a very high risk? Its desire to invest in Surrey towns is laudable but not by taking on an un-viable scheme that the market has so firmly rejected?
It seems that over 70% of the rent that is required to support the £30m commercial investment is dependent on letting the unit shops to leading multiples at very high rental levels, relative to the adjacent East Street pitch. When this doesn’t happen the value of the investment will plummet by at least this percentage.
The normal practice for such investments is for the developer to take the up-front risk. He does need to secure the end investor in principle. This enables the developer to obtain bank finance to build and let the scheme. However,the long-term investor gets a ready-made income on long leases – at or close to 100% let . The investor has a monitoring role during construction but doesn’t pay anything until letting is finalized.
According to press reports, only 30% of the space needs to be let before the investment goes final. Apparently this threshold has already been reached with the Cinema, Restaurants and Food Store. This strongly suggests that SCC will have to make a full commitment to the investment with not a single unit shop let. Its development partners will be relatively secure but SCC is therefore taking a huge gamble with public money!
With a new retail development, where retailers “hunt in packs”, it is pretty well all or nothing. I think the chances of leading retailers agreeing en-mass to go here are close to zero. My prediction is that it will open with twenty-two empty units with hoardings. This is going to be a big problem.
Councillors. Please pause now until you have a full understanding of these issues. You seem to be sleep-walking into a financial disaster. Nothing can now stop you but your own good judgement.
I’ve sent a similar e-mail to Waverley Borough Councillors.
Kind regards
Jim Duffy
Director
jduffy@addarchitects.co.uk
WE’RE GOING SLIGHTLY MAD – BUT WE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES!
What exactly is our disingenuous Leader of ‘Your Waverley’ on about? – She speaks triumphantly of the recent High Court’s judgement on the Farnham Five’s Fight as if it were some sort of endorsement of ‘YW’s toxic partnership with Crest Nicholson and the merit of redeveloping Blightwells/ East Street Farnham.
We here at the Waverley Web thought we had gone – slightly mad when we heard her gloating about their success. She actually had the bare faced cheek to speak publicly of a judge who, she said, had made the ‘right decision for Farnham! For God’s sake woman, what does the judge know, or even want to know about redeveloping Farnham? His ruling was not about ” development in Farnham” it was about HIS, yes HIS, interpretation of the law. And we don’t want to say too much about his interpretation do we as he might stamp on us!!! UGH!!
“If you want to live and thrive let a spider run alive!!
YOU CHALLENGED THE FARNHAM FIVE RIGHT TO HAVE THEIR CASE HEARD? GOT IT!
Your gloating just continues to alienate, even those Farnham residents, who actually support the scheme, by your preposterous, and ever more cynical misrepresentation of the facts.
It is quite simple – the judge, accepted Waverley’s argument that the claimants had no standing in law to have their case heard. Got it! – he ruled out their request to HAVE THE CASE HEARD. Why? Because – “they had no direct commercial or financial interest in the matter.” That’s WHY! The fact that another judge had come to a different conclusion in a Wincheser issue just goes to show- different Judge – different decision – the Law is an Ass!
So let’s face it Councillor Potts all you and Your Council have achieved is to evade any possibility of your shenanigans (we will call them that rather any stronger accusations) being examined in the cold harsh light of day in public at a Judicial Review. So all your nasty little secrets remain just that… unless of course… the WW knows different!
But the facts remain – You have given away Farnham land that was assigned a minimum value for ‘Your Waverley’ of £8.76million in 2003 but which is worth only £3.19m now!
What a great shame for Farnham residents and the rest of the Waverley borough that you were not given an opportunity to explain Why? at a Judicial Review?
We have in the past few hours received this Press Release from the Farnham Five and will post on this separately at a future date. Press Release on Ruling [4]
However, its Pyrrhic victory over Farnham’s Fearless Ones may not boost their reputation in the eyes of all Waverley’s residents and it could, like Pyrrhus, suffer heavy losses !
Just to recap – “Your Waverley” and its NBF – Crest Nicholson – joined forces and engaged top barristers – after being told by council members … ‘win and it doesn’t matter how much it costs’ to prevent a bunch of pensioners even getting to a Judicial Review of the Blightwells Saga.
Of course it didn’t matter how much it cost did it? Because ‘Your Waverley” was using our money to defend a challenge brought by residents with their own,, and other Farnham residents’ money. So we make that paying twice! Or is that conclusion due to our heightened sense of humour?
Remember … what ‘YW’ and its New Best Friend ‘CN” actually won, was merely the right to stop FFFF’s – even getting to a Judicial Review because the Judge ruled out their right to challenge. (Well he would wouldn’t he – don’t want the voting fodder all over the country getting above themselves and actually believing they can challenge authority – do we? Whatever next! Anyone would think this was Cameron’s BIG SOCIETY!
Oh! and before Gone to Potts (YW’s leader) goes on record humming and hahhing about how the challenge has delayed the East Street/Blightwells re-development – maybe she should look closer to home.
So the regeneration goes ahead . However – before “YW” and its ‘NBF’ get too complacent about their bully boy tactics perhaps they should read the letter and article below which was sent to us by a Farnham architect with 30 years experience in retail development.
And, perhaps ‘Your Waverley” should consider this. – The problem with being a bully is that on the flip side of that particular coin, you’ll find the imprint of a coward!
Only time will tell if ‘Your Waverley – and its NBF – are heading for the slow motion car crash that many are predicting!
Of course if “Your Waverley” hadn’t challenged the people’s right to a Judicial Review it would have probably been well under way by now…
Instead the town is in a sort of limbo… as the clock ticks awaiting the Court’s decision on the preliminary hearing to prove the claimant’s legal status. So the question on everyone’s lips is – “will Farnham’s Famous Fearless Five” fall at the first fence – or – will they take the massive leap that will see them over the fence to stand face to face with local authority and developer giants at a Judicial Review.
Of course it could be a waste of the council taxpayers money – but “Your Waverley” couldn’t give a damn about that – after all there’s plenty more dosh where that came from … isn’t there?
But the delay is not all bad for the angry and frustrated people of Farnham is it? Because although the perpetrators of the fight reached their target for its funding in just two months – others elsewhere in the borough are watching Farnham’s Fight – ready to pitch in with more!
Because thanks to the Farnham Herald and the Waverley Web everyone in the borough can read all about it!
17-01-26-judgement-day-for-east-street-protestors-copy
Because this is not just Farnham’s fight – it is the people of Waverley’s fight too.
Because:
